Narratively it's also perfectly timed. We were already discussing about Reform polling above the Tories in opinion polls in the near future. Now such an event can be tied to Sunak's D-Day bunk off, because it's so obviously something that will particularly rile up Reform/Tory swing voters.
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
Number 10 has issued a formal denial of claims that Rishi Sunak was originally considering missing the D-Day commemorations *entirely*
No 10 spokesman: 'The PM was always scheduled to attend D-Day commemorations, including the UK National Commemoration event in Normandy, and it is incorrect to suggest otherwise'
That looks like a pretty forceful denial. They will be so screwed if someone leaks to the contrary.
"I wasn't planing to miss the entire thing" is perhaps not the best way to put an end to the story.
Either it is badly worded or, worse, it is legalistic sophistry that will have unravelled by the end of the day. However, we should bear in mind that malign, often foreign, actors are already trolling during this election campaign.
Sunak could try that line: “Russian bots are questioning my patriotism. We can’t let them win by letting in a Labour government.”
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
Does it...I don't think colour will be the issue. I think more likely that it will severely limit anybody who is ultra wealthy from getting the top job.
Trump, JFK, Berlusconi all ultra wealthy, all won as they had had charisma and could connect with voters
Well Trump its debatable....I am not saying its impossible, I am saying it makes it much harder. I am saying it is a bigger hinderance for the Tory party than the fact Sunak is brown, basically nobody gives a stuff about the latter.
They have picked 3 very privileged leaders in short succession. One was fine, the other two have been very poor. They would be better to find a Thatcher type person who had a normal background, did some normal type job for a while, and wasn't weird like May / Truss.
I thought the low bar set by Brown in 2010 for GE campaign incompetence by a PM would never be surpassed, but Rishi is quite unbelievable in his staggering ineptitude.
I've been broadly sympathetic to his plight and much as it pains me to do so, expecting to put a cross in the blue box despite zero prospect of a Tory hold in my ultra marginal seat even if the polls had been neck and neck.
I'm resigned to Labour, have been for 3 years, and accept one party can't stay in power for more than 14/15 years, I'm fine with Keir as PM, dull as he'll probably be, but I'm utterly depressed at the thought of the Tories being wiped out and Labour having a stupendous majority that will keep them/ the left in power for a generation. And that I'll be totally disenfranchised if my only prospect is to vote for some Faragist rabble.
I'm 47. I could be approaching my 70s before the country swings back to the centre right, if it ever does at all.
I'm so depressed about this, as someone who's taken a close interest in politics for maybe 35 years. Sad.
Tories got a 10 year majority last time, things can turn much quicker than you think.
I admit as someone who thought Johnson had realigned politics for a generation, I was surprised how quickly it all fell apart. So we shouldn't make the same assumption about Starmer going on for ever. Nevertheless the opposite assumption is also a mistake. My impression of Starmer is he is very ambitious for a lengthy period in office and will do his utmost to win the following election.
So Starmer might crash and burn or he might be there for years and years. Not a particularly useful assessment for a site dedicated to political predictions, I accept.
Blair had a golden inheritance and held it together for just over a decade. Starmer is inheriting a broken country with no real plans to change it beyond a generic left-wing playbook imposed on an already record tax take. His chances of making it work are very slim.
It depends on how convincingly Starmer can pin the country's woes on the now decimated opposition. The Conservatives have provided him with plenty material to work with.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
Not really - it has nothing to do with his skin colour, he’s just shite.
Do you really think Reform would be polling 15-20% if the Tory leader was a white male? I don't, sadly
I'd agree with you that racism is one factor working against Sunak (with the types of voter you're talking about) but as to how big a factor compared to all the others - hopefully quite marginal. Course, you can't poll for this. Racism on a self-reported basis is vanishingly rare.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
...the next migrant PM...? I see your true colours.
Oh ffs. Enough wokeflakery. You know what I mean. The next time we have a pm without deep British roots - all they need is good advisors to help them get the things they wouldn’t get instinctively
And this applies to anyone who migrates to anywhere else. It’s not easy to become another nationality and instantly understand the deep feelings and quirks and motivations of that nation. So much in a nation’s identity goes unsaid - it is felt
This is not a problem for the average migrant, all they gotta do is obey the laws. But if you seek to lead that nation then yes it might be an issue. That’s when you get good advisors, which Sunak really really really seems to lack. Plus he is mega rich. He’s just different and detached
And I speak as someone that quite likes him. He seems decent honesty smart hardworking. And tech savvy. And engaging. Chancellor was a good job for him. Or business minister. Or minister for technology or finance. But Prime minister was a massive step too far and here we are
Starmer, and Labour should probably think about how far to push attacks, demands for apologies etc. They are on for a landslide anyway and the more things they over-react about the more they are setting themselves up as hostages to fortune when they inevitably fuck up in power.
I imagine Starmer thinks he’s being ruthless but he doesn’t need to be, his enemies are killing themselves, but he’s not being totally smart.
Agreed. I think Labour have got the tone broadly right so far. But they should leave it there.
No crossover today with YG Lab 41 (+1) Con 19. (=) Ref 16 (-1) LD 11 (+1)
Thanks Woolie.
It seems YG picked up the Farageasm last time round, and this time the poll was a little too early to pick up on the D-Day error. (Thank goodness D-Daygate is too ugly and awkward to use.)
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
No it isn't. You may not like it but if an ethnic minority PM loses by a landslide to a white male like Starmer the main parties will conclude the UK electorate are just not ready for a non white PM (even Obama of course lost the US white vote in 2008 and 2012, it was the massive black turnout for him, especially in 2012 and most of the Hispanic vote that got him elected and re elected but the UK Hindu population is far smaller than the US African American population).
As you have said only those with direct family links to fighters in WW2 can truly emotionally feel it, that means on your argument white British almost certainly.
In 10 or 20 years when WW2 is as far away as WW1 is now and all veterans are dead it may be less of an issue but for now it is
Plenty of non-white Britons have ancestors who fought in WW2. There was a substantial British Indian army who fought in Asia but also in Europe. Also plenty of West Indians (who were all volunteers, none were conscripted). Plus of course mixed race Britons whose White British ancestors fought. If Sunak is disconnected from the "normal" British experience perhaps that's his parents' fault for sending him to an elitist school whose entire raison d'etre is to prevent mixing with "normal" British people? I suspect Sunak's real problem is a lack of empathy and curiosity. He seems to lack able advisors. It should also be evident that he is being lined up as the fall guy for the multiple governing failures of the British right.
If in doubt with the Cons at the moment, it's most likely a question of competence. Call it 'Rishi's Rule'.
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
We do need to change where homes are needed. We need new towns, with local employers, around the country. We cannot continue to overheat London in what is already the most unbalanced national economy among our peers in Europe and elsewhere. We must go back to the new towns model that served us between and after the war.
What I would be offering Farage right now if I were Sunak.
Alliance between Con and Ref. Reform stand down in all Tory seats where the sitting MP is going for reelection (except Clacton) Tories stand down in all other Tory seats Everywhere else is 50/50. Sunak promises to resign immediately post election. Leader of a merged party to be elected with the MPs of both parties voting for a final two and the final vote being an electoral college of Tory members (50%) and Reform members (50%).
They have about 4 hours to organise it.
It's about all he can do. Reform reach the parts of the country the Sunak cant reach. Instead of mucking each other about they;d be safer having the kind of relationship Labour have with Cooperative Party MPs.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
...the next migrant PM...? I see your true colours.
A recent British PM of Anglo Russian Turkic ancestry & born in the USA was certainly able to synthesise the patriotic bullshit, perhaps Rishi should get him in as an advisor?
The Sunak-Normandy error is an overdetermined problem. One angle I haven't seen much is that he was born in 1980. Much younger than other PMs. And for his entire adult life Britain's wars have been domestically controversial rather than nationally unifying. But none of these explains why some trusted advisor did not shout stop.
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
We do need to change where homes are needed. We need new towns, with local employers, around the country. We cannot continue to overheat London in what is already the most unbalanced national economy among our peers in Europe and elsewhere. We must go back to the new towns model that served us between and after the war.
So how do you actually shift the work from London to those regional new towns..
Until you can answer that question you end up with all the demand being in London because that is where the work and the opportunities are..
A doctored video of Labour's Wes Streeting has been pushed to X users - making it seem as though he called fellow politician Diane Abbott a "silly woman". A network of X accounts has been creating and sharing such clips of politicians ahead of the general election - and then posting misleading comments alongside to bolster the impression they are real. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg33x9jm02ko
Nigel Farage and Luke Akehurst are also named.
I have seen one of Luke Akehurst where he is making comments about Durham Residents being stupid Geordies and talking about Gaza. It is obviously a fake and doesn't even sound like him.
It is not even a good fake like the one I saw of "Michael Saylor" promising people 2 BTC for every 1 BTC they sent him. Anyone falling for that deserves to be ripped off.
For those of you not inclined to follow the link, it takes you to a clip of last night’s QT. Fiona Bruce asks the audience ‘Who here is seeing the benefits of Brexit?’
One guy raises his hand.
Did he say what it was ?
He said: "Sorry, can you repeat the question please?"
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
No it isn't. You may not like it but if an ethnic minority PM loses by a landslide to a white male like Starmer the main parties will conclude the UK electorate are just not ready for a non white PM (even Obama of course lost the US white vote in 2008 and 2012, it was the massive black turnout for him, especially in 2012 and most of the Hispanic vote that got him elected and re elected but the UK Hindu population is far smaller than the US African American population).
As you have said only those with direct family links to fighters in WW2 can truly emotionally feel it, that means on your argument white British almost certainly.
In 10 or 20 years when WW2 is as far away as WW1 is now and all veterans are dead it may be less of an issue but for now it is
OK, you've nailed it.
Daft take of the day is officially yours.
"There were no black people in Britain in the 1940s."
It would be more impressive still were Reeves herself not already on generous DB pensions from her time at the Bank of England as her Parliamentary pension. She is not all in it together.
However bad it is for the Tories, at least they’re not the greens
“What to make of the Green Party? wow! what a charming lot
"Green Party general election candidates have shared “antisemitic” slurs and conspiracy theories, backed pro-Palestinian protests at Auschwitz and justified the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel.
On Thursday night party officials were examining a dossier featuring nearly 20 candidates who have shared offensive material online. Among them were individuals who compared Zionism to cancer and claimed the Hamas atrocities on October 7 were a false flag orchestrated by Israel.
A spokesman for the party said the allegations were “serious and are being treated as such”. Its final candidate list was still being decided before the deadline at 5pm on Friday, the spokesman said."”
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
We do need to change where homes are needed. We need new towns, with local employers, around the country. We cannot continue to overheat London in what is already the most unbalanced national economy among our peers in Europe and elsewhere. We must go back to the new towns model that served us between and after the war.
So how do you actually shift the work from London to those regional new towns..
Until you can answer that question you end up with all the demand being in London because that is where the work and the opportunities are..
That's the issue. It has been tried before. What has been tried has failed so a new approach is needed.
Will putting the govt workers in Darlington turbo charge growth in that area, or relocating HMRC offices into the Toon centre do that. I am not sure it will.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That is a very silly post. And totally misguided.
Many of the front runners to be the next Tory leader happen to be non-white. They'll be evaluated on their policies and abilities, in the same way as Sunak.
The lesson from Sunak is don't choose someone who is shite.
In fairness after the Trussterfuck he was the only viable option to impose without a contest. Whoever is the next leader should revise the party constitution particularly the leadership election rules.
To what purpose - if it hadn't been for the membership vote the only difference would have been Rishi winning the initial MP vote and becoming PM a few months earlier...
Yes but politics is a contingent discipline. He would have been starting from a very different position so his options and choices would have been different. I don’t think you can say that Rishi was always going to end in this, you might have a case for saying he isn’t a natural etc but the context would have been very different.
When you are in a doom loop even things that should normally improve your situation have a tendency to reinforce the doom. The Tories were struggling before Truss but she made things far worse such that I think it massively reduced the room for manoeuvre of whoever followed her. At every turn Rishi has one ok option and a dozen bad and terrible ones. Then factor in human error and you get where we are.
The fact the ITV interview wasn't even going out for a week is just weird. He is going to be wittering on about Labour £2k tax rise, no I didn't lie about that and then what? He can't answer any manifesto questions, it will just be all wait and see...which will look even weirder in a week time.
Perhaps his handlers thought better not risk it when he has a load of policies to defend, get it done early?
However bad it is for the Tories, at least they’re not the greens
“What to make of the Green Party? wow! what a charming lot
"Green Party general election candidates have shared “antisemitic” slurs and conspiracy theories, backed pro-Palestinian protests at Auschwitz and justified the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel.
On Thursday night party officials were examining a dossier featuring nearly 20 candidates who have shared offensive material online. Among them were individuals who compared Zionism to cancer and claimed the Hamas atrocities on October 7 were a false flag orchestrated by Israel.
A spokesman for the party said the allegations were “serious and are being treated as such”. Its final candidate list was still being decided before the deadline at 5pm on Friday, the spokesman said."”
It would be more impressive still were Reeves herself not already on generous DB pensions from her time at the Bank of England as her Parliamentary pension. She is not all in it together.
But this is the state pension and we simply cannot afford to spend that level of money so she is taking the right decision here.
How many of these so-called WASPI women also have DB pensions. Given their demographics a fair few.
Do Corbyn, Thornberry etc really believe Cuban health and education system were top notch under Castro...because all those that fled didn't seem to think so. Its a bit like visiting North Korea now and saying well isn't it lovely, everybody is so happy.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That is a very silly post. And totally misguided.
Many of the front runners to be the next Tory leader happen to be non-white. They'll be evaluated on their policies and abilities, in the same way as Sunak.
The lesson from Sunak is don't choose someone who is shite.
In fairness after the Trussterfuck he was the only viable option to impose without a contest. Whoever is the next leader should revise the party constitution particularly the leadership election rules.
I thought he'd be competent, connect well with the public, and be a tough opponent for Starmer/Labour. I've been surprised by how much he's struggled.
No crossover today with YG Lab 41 (+1) Con 19. (=) Ref 16 (-1) LD 11 (+1)
My gut feel is the Farage intervention will have a limited effect. Most of the remaining 19% still staying with the Conservatives can't stand the man and the 2019 Tory to 2024 Labour switchers will stick with their decision for now. 2019 Tory to Don't Knows is the main pool for Farage to fish in IMO.
Labour getting involved. Not smart, but won't matter.
You really don't need to. Its terrible for Sunak and it is a classic story that the media will run will regardless of what Labour say. They absolutely love this stuff, there will be endless video / photos from the day, its so much easier than carefully examining policy commitments to work out the maths.
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
We do need to change where homes are needed. We need new towns, with local employers, around the country. We cannot continue to overheat London in what is already the most unbalanced national economy among our peers in Europe and elsewhere. We must go back to the new towns model that served us between and after the war.
So how do you actually shift the work from London to those regional new towns..
Until you can answer that question you end up with all the demand being in London because that is where the work and the opportunities are..
That's the issue. It has been tried before. What has been tried has failed so a new approach is needed.
Will putting the govt workers in Darlington turbo charge growth in that area, or relocating HMRC offices into the Toon centre do that. I am not sure it will.
In the case of Darlo - not really it's a few jobs and they are already having to talk about cross department transfers to give people promotion options (basically it's big but not big enough).
HMRC moving into the Toon centre is a good move but that's because it was a faff to get to Longbenton so moving it centrally will increase the commute catchment area so increasing the number of potential people able to work there..
The reality however is that for a lot of firms the catchment area of potential workers is such that there is nowhere you can move to that provides you with the skillset that exists in London.
Take an example such as software development. say 1 in 10000 is a decent developer you can employ. To get 10 developers you need to be in a place where 1,000,000 people can easily get to the office to give you a chance of getting those 10 workers.
The Sunak-Normandy error is an overdetermined problem. One angle I haven't seen much is that he was born in 1980. Much younger than other PMs. And for his entire adult life Britain's wars have been domestically controversial rather than nationally unifying. But none of these explains why some trusted advisor did not shout stop.
Yep, I think age is certainly a factor, much more so than the ‘migrant’ rubbish. The 3 features in North British news with vox pops last night were D Day, the impending Taylor Swift-gasm and the Scotland football team prep; kids and young people in the latter two, oldies and late middle agers in the former.
What I would be offering Farage right now if I were Sunak.
Alliance between Con and Ref. Reform stand down in all Tory seats where the sitting MP is going for reelection (except Clacton) Tories stand down in all other Tory seats Everywhere else is 50/50. Sunak promises to resign immediately post election. Leader of a merged party to be elected with the MPs of both parties voting for a final two and the final vote being an electoral college of Tory members (50%) and Reform members (50%).
They have about 4 hours to organise it.
It's about all he can do. Reform reach the parts of the country the Sunak cant reach. Instead of mucking each other about they;d be safer having the kind of relationship Labour have with Cooperative Party MPs.
That just looks desperate and offering to stand down would completely undercut Rishi's "it's me or Keir Starmer line"
That's not to stay a future Con/Ref alliance couldn't work but it would be more likely to be for 28/29 (something like the higher placed party in each seat gets a clear run)
I'm a lot angrier about DDay than I thought I would be. I wonder how the rest of the nation are?
It does seem to be in the news now, so it’s a story getting a bit of cut through. I just put the telly on and they were talking about it being a mistake Rishi made.
There might be the argument the papers didn’t ignore it, but the DDay coverage was more important to lead with (which makes the Daily M*rror utter disgrace as true to form).
Don’t know if any newspapers other than Mirror and Guardian will mention it tonight though, especially if Penny puts in great performance in the debate, they will lead with that. Penny the Ange and Farage Slayer [insert Conan with sword graphic]
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
We do need to change where homes are needed. We need new towns, with local employers, around the country. We cannot continue to overheat London in what is already the most unbalanced national economy among our peers in Europe and elsewhere. We must go back to the new towns model that served us between and after the war.
So how do you actually shift the work from London to those regional new towns..
Until you can answer that question you end up with all the demand being in London because that is where the work and the opportunities are..
That's the issue. It has been tried before. What has been tried has failed so a new approach is needed.
Will putting the govt workers in Darlington turbo charge growth in that area, or relocating HMRC offices into the Toon centre do that. I am not sure it will.
In the case of Darlo - not really it's a few jobs and they are already having to talk about cross department transfers to give people promotion options (basically it's big but not big enough).
HMRC moving into the Toon centre is a good move but that's because it was a faff to get to Longbenton so moving it centrally will increase the commute catchment area so increasing the number of potential people able to work there..
But it is just moving staff from Longbenton and Washington (IIRC) into Newcastle. It is not going to help level up. Won't create masses of extra jobs. It will certainly help the existing food and drinks concessions in the Toon but that is it really. The construction jobs are short term and welcome and the new building looks okay but that is it.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
Not really - it has nothing to do with his skin colour, he’s just shite.
Do you really think Reform would be polling 15-20% if the Tory leader was a white male? I don't, sadly
UKIP did in 2015. Not sure where in Asia Cameron was born exactly.
No UKIP got 12% in 2015 that is lower than Reform are polling in the latest polls
Permanent very low deposits guaranteed by government has other negatives above the risk of bad loans.
What percentage of council houses sold are still in the hands of owner occupiers, as opposed to private rental companies?
40% of right to buy homes are now rented out privately.
PB likes to ignore the vast shifts in housing tenure in the last 14 years, but ultimately it's the reason why the country has become more unequal and why the number of natural Conservative voters has fallen. There is no evidence that a mass private housebuilding programme would reverse the trend and increase ownership - all the new homes will simply be hoovered up by those who have accumulated large savings.
That shows a gross ignorance of economics and follows your typical lame excuse-making for NIMBYism.
The reason for the vast shifts in housing tenure is the lack of building supply. If supply increases that will be reversed.
And of course in a healthy free housing economy typically 10% of homes are unoccupied [for very good reasons] which means homes in poor condition or are too expensive don't get let out and the owner is left paying their bills/mortgage and taxes without a tenant paying them any rent.
So why would those with savings snap up all homes if supply is increased and they can't let them out? It means price falls and people who want to buy to own have a choice, as well as tenants having a choice, on where to live.
There he blows!
New homes: 2.0 million Increase in households renting: 1.1 million Increase in households owning outright: 0.9 million Decrease in households with a mortgage: -0.4 million
It would have certainly been worse without any new homes. But the idea that an increase in supply is the only intervention required is nonsense - wealth inequality is now far too great in the UK for that to suffice.
That's been caused by the terrible shortage of new homes, meaning prices are far too high. Which is fundamental supply and demand in action.
An increase in supply may not be the only intervention required, I never said it is, but it is absolutely 100% needed and would help to reverse the damage that has been done.
Of course if supply increases and prices fall in real terms, then that would lower that inequality you mentioned too.
The number of new homes has increased faster than the population, by a wide margin. It's actually a glut.
The problem is that there are significant mismatches with where those houses are being built and where there is housing pressure. At risk of pissing off lots of PBers, here is my official assessment of LAs (bespoke assessments can be provided on request):
YIMBY Gold award:
Selby Huntingdonshire Mid Suffolk Telford and Wrekin West Lindsey
NIMBY Black Spot of Barty Doom
Pendle Thurrock Swale Epping Forest Peterborough
Urban Excellence award: Southwark Rural Excellence award: West Devon, Cotswolds, Uttlesford Leon award: Camden, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea (fewer houses, population falling) Trooper award: Tower Hamlets, Bedford, Tewkesbury (massive effort, but simply can’t keep up) Breeze block award: Barking and Dagenham, Slough, Leicester (massive population growth, no attempt to deal with it) Barty award: Copeland, Richmondshire, Caerphilly, Allerdale (population falling but f*** it more houses anyway)
This glut is all in your head.
The number of new homes has nowhere near kept up with demand.
Again you show a shocking ignorance of the effects of demographics on housing requirements, talking again only of "population". 🤦♂️
8.2% increase in homes 6.1% increase in households 6.3% increase in population
Why are you lying?
Your households figure is a lie. You know this, so why repeat it?
People who are compelled to share a home as there's not enough houses are classed as one household. You know that, but you're repeating your lies anyway. 🤦♂️
The idea that t here's been a lesser increase in household demand than population increase, when our demographic changes mean there's even further household pressures, is so obviously false its remarkable your following through on this outright blatant lie.
The number of people per household has fallen, and overcrowding has fallen too.
Edit: sorry, the population per household has risen* This is explained by immigrants being much more efficient users of households than say older people
The number of people per household should have fallen as we have 4 million extra over 50s than we did. Who don't live with children.🤦♂️
Immigration doesn't counter that.
Your own data reveals the chronic housing shortage. Again!
In most LAs, housing pressure is actually falling. It's only in about 100 where you see this acute problem, and they are mostly in our cities.
Don't believe you - please provide evidence because even this week I saw issues in 3 local authorities round here..
Absolutely.
I'd love to know these mythical local authorities without housing shortages.
I provided you with some examples above
I have posted the infographic on this before too, once directly in reply to Bart.
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
We do need to change where homes are needed. We need new towns, with local employers, around the country. We cannot continue to overheat London in what is already the most unbalanced national economy among our peers in Europe and elsewhere. We must go back to the new towns model that served us between and after the war.
So how do you actually shift the work from London to those regional new towns..
Until you can answer that question you end up with all the demand being in London because that is where the work and the opportunities are..
The same way they did it before. First, just building a new town creates economic activity on its own. Then you persuade employers to move there.
Sunak saying this shouldn’t be politicized ! So the Tories would have said zip if Starmer had done this .
Funnily enough I have some sympathy for this view. The D Day celebrations should be about the combatants. Which is perhaps a reason for Sunak not to draw attention to himself.
But it is just moving staff from Longbenton and Washington (IIRC) into Newcastle. It is not going to help level up. Won't create masses of extra jobs. It will certainly help the existing food and drinks concessions in the Toon but that is it really. The construction jobs are short term and welcome and the new building looks okay but that is it.
After all the money they spent rebuilding Longbenton... (I worked there)
The Sunak-Normandy error is an overdetermined problem. One angle I haven't seen much is that he was born in 1980. Much younger than other PMs. And for his entire adult life Britain's wars have been domestically controversial rather than nationally unifying. But none of these explains why some trusted advisor did not shout stop.
I don't know, WWII was still heavily talk in schools in the 1990s and traditionally those big famous private schools are really big into CCF, Remembrance Day, naming all the alumni who died each year. There are other wars that are now distant memories and all rather obscure to younger people, but D-Day, to a 40+ year old, educated in the UK at a top school, nah, not buying it.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
Not really - it has nothing to do with his skin colour, he’s just shite.
Do you really think Reform would be polling 15-20% if the Tory leader was a white male? I don't, sadly
UKIP did in 2015. Not sure where in Asia Cameron was born exactly.
No UKIP got 12% in 2015 that is lower than Reform are polling in the latest polls
The VI polling had them routinely higher than that though.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
No it isn't. You may not like it but if an ethnic minority PM loses by a landslide to a white male like Starmer the main parties will conclude the UK electorate are just not ready for a non white PM (even Obama of course lost the US white vote in 2008 and 2012, it was the massive black turnout for him, especially in 2012 and most of the Hispanic vote that got him elected and re elected but the UK Hindu population is far smaller than the US African American population).
As you have said only those with direct family links to fighters in WW2 can truly emotionally feel it, that means on your argument white British almost certainly.
In 10 or 20 years when WW2 is as far away as WW1 is now and all veterans are dead it may be less of an issue but for now it is
When, not if, Sunak loses by a landslide it will have absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity.
I'm a lot angrier about DDay than I thought I would be. I wonder how the rest of the nation are?
It does seem to be in the news now, so it’s a story getting a bit of cut through. I just put the telly on and they were talking about it being a mistake Rishi made.
There might be the argument the papers didn’t ignore it, but the DDay coverage was more important to lead with (which makes the Daily M*rror utter disgrace as true to form).
Don’t know if any newspapers other than Mirror and Guardian will mention it tonight though, especially if Penny puts in great performance in the debate, they will lead with that. Penny the Ange and Farage Slayer [insert Conan with sword graphic]
It was the headline on BBC Radio 2 at 8am, I switched to Radio 5 in the car and it was about to be the subject of Nicky Campbell's phone in.
That's landing in middle England, more influential than the newspapers.
What I would be offering Farage right now if I were Sunak.
Alliance between Con and Ref. Reform stand down in all Tory seats where the sitting MP is going for reelection (except Clacton) Tories stand down in all other Tory seats Everywhere else is 50/50. Sunak promises to resign immediately post election. Leader of a merged party to be elected with the MPs of both parties voting for a final two and the final vote being an electoral college of Tory members (50%) and Reform members (50%).
They have about 4 hours to organise it.
It's about all he can do. Reform reach the parts of the country the Sunak cant reach. Instead of mucking each other about they;d be safer having the kind of relationship Labour have with Cooperative Party MPs.
That just looks desperate and offering to stand down would completely undercut Rishi's "it's me or Keir Starmer line"
That's not to stay a future Con/Ref alliance couldn't work but it would be more likely to be for 28/29 (something like the higher placed party in each seat gets a clear run)
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
Not really - it has nothing to do with his skin colour, he’s just shite.
Do you really think Reform would be polling 15-20% if the Tory leader was a white male? I don't, sadly
I was reading some of the comments on the DT and you have a point . But Sunak is really a poor campaigner and has scored a huge own goal . I still can’t believe he decided with advisors that it was okay to leave early and rush back to do a tv interview.
This trashes so many aspects of the Tory campaign .
I was David Jones driver for the whole of the 2010 campaign and I will never forgot when bigot gate came over the radio, David and I looked at each other and besides our mirth said that will finish Brown
Yesterday, Sunak handed just as big a present to his opponents and whilst he was finished anyway he may have taken more of his colleagues down with him
Brown's legacy 'bigot' - Sunak leaving the battle field prematurely in front of world leaders and the veterans is something he will never live down
I thought the low bar set by Brown in 2010 for GE campaign incompetence by a PM would never be surpassed, but Rishi is quite unbelievable in his staggering ineptitude.
I've been broadly sympathetic to his plight and much as it pains me to do so, expecting to put a cross in the blue box despite zero prospect of a Tory hold in my ultra marginal seat even if the polls had been neck and neck.
I'm resigned to Labour, have been for 3 years, and accept one party can't stay in power for more than 14/15 years, I'm fine with Keir as PM, dull as he'll probably be, but I'm utterly depressed at the thought of the Tories being wiped out and Labour having a stupendous majority that will keep them/ the left in power for a generation. And that I'll be totally disenfranchised if my only prospect is to vote for some Faragist rabble.
I'm 47. I could be approaching my 70s before the country swings back to the centre right, if it ever does at all.
I'm so depressed about this, as someone who's taken a close interest in politics for maybe 35 years. Sad.
Tories got a 10 year majority last time, things can turn much quicker than you think.
I admit as someone who thought Johnson had realigned politics for a generation, I was surprised how quickly it all fell apart. So we shouldn't make the same assumption about Starmer going on for ever. Nevertheless the opposite assumption is also a mistake. My impression of Starmer is he is very ambitious for a lengthy period in office and will do his utmost to win the following election.
So Starmer might crash and burn or he might be there for years and years. Not a particularly useful assessment for a site dedicated to political predictions, I accept.
It depends how fundamentally broken you think British politics is.
If Starmer can stabilise the ship, get into a generally broad based recovery, then he will stay in office for a while, and the Tories can go through their usual cats in a sack fun time in the first two terms, and maybe recover for a third term.
If Starmer can not fix things and becomes rapidly unpopular, then the whole system will become unstable. You could then see a real breakdown in politics, with the failures of our Victorian political system leading to crisis and paralysis.
Then Putinists like Farage might well get their Trump moment and the shit really hits the fan.
As of now, it could go either way, but the innate conservatism of the system and the country may yet stabilise things. However the slightest thing, something like an early change of Monarch for example, or some epochal disaster, might also lead to a general questioning of our entire system.
After the abject chaos of the Tory misrule, the country needs to settle down. Certainly Farage is the last thing we need at this point, and with no real party behind him, I really do question if Reform UK Ltd. is anything more than a sophisticated astrotrurf operation.
But it is just moving staff from Longbenton and Washington (IIRC) into Newcastle. It is not going to help level up. Won't create masses of extra jobs. It will certainly help the existing food and drinks concessions in the Toon but that is it really. The construction jobs are short term and welcome and the new building looks okay but that is it.
After all the money they spent rebuilding Longbenton... (I worked there)
In 2022 they were talking of relocating all, or part, of the Freeman hospital onto Benton Park view.
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
No it isn't. You may not like it but if an ethnic minority PM loses by a landslide to a white male like Starmer the main parties will conclude the UK electorate are just not ready for a non white PM (even Obama of course lost the US white vote in 2008 and 2012, it was the massive black turnout for him, especially in 2012 and most of the Hispanic vote that got him elected and re elected but the UK Hindu population is far smaller than the US African American population).
As you have said only those with direct family links to fighters in WW2 can truly emotionally feel it, that means on your argument white British almost certainly.
In 10 or 20 years when WW2 is as far away as WW1 is now and all veterans are dead it may be less of an issue but for now it is
Plenty of non-white Britons have ancestors who fought in WW2. There was a substantial British Indian army who fought in Asia but also in Europe. Also plenty of West Indians (who were all volunteers, none were conscripted). Plus of course mixed race Britons whose White British ancestors fought. If Sunak is disconnected from the "normal" British experience perhaps that's his parents' fault for sending him to an elitist school whose entire raison d'etre is to prevent mixing with "normal" British people? I suspect Sunak's real problem is a lack of empathy and curiosity. He seems to lack able advisors. It should also be evident that he is being lined up as the fall guy for the multiple governing failures of the British right.
Yep. It is the billionaire hedge fund angle that is most damaging. Whether true or not the impression he gives is that he doesn't really have time or the inclination to become PM, doesn't really give a shit about the little people, and would rather move onto something less irritating.
Of course the master campaigning stroke would be to find a relative who was one of, as you say, hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers who fought alongside native Brits.
The Sunak-Normandy error is an overdetermined problem. One angle I haven't seen much is that he was born in 1980. Much younger than other PMs. And for his entire adult life Britain's wars have been domestically controversial rather than nationally unifying. But none of these explains why some trusted advisor did not shout stop.
Yep, I think age is certainly a factor, much more so than the ‘migrant’ rubbish. The 3 features in North British news with vox pops last night were D Day, the impending Taylor Swift-gasm and the Scotland football team prep; kids and young people in the latter two, oldies and late middle agers in the former.
No, it’s the “migrant rubbish” as well. If Sunak had British parents and grandparents he would know in his DNA that D Day is big
I bet even Corbyn gets it. For that reason
This is not a criticism of PMs with foreign ancestry nor a reason for them not to hold office. As I’ve said coming from a new place can be a great advantage. A fresh perspective
What it means is you need good advisors. Didn’t Blair have an advisor who would inform him of the concerns of the common people? What tv they watched? Etc? It’s that but for identity
Sunak’s extra problem is that his wealth further alienates him from the average Brit
I hesitate to mention this, but could Sunak’s background be an issue. He’s of Indian descent and his family are fairly recent migrants
For a British politician with that innate sense if British history - parents who remember the war or grandparents who were in wars - etc etc - then D Day is iconic. It’s in your blood. No way you make this howling error
For someone like Sunak D Day may appear like some quaint ceremony of a long ago war. He might appreciate it intellectually but doesn’t get it emotionally. Because of his background
I hasten to add I have no problem with a migrant prime minister. Just as long as they are competent! I’d have no problem with a bloody robot premier - they’d probably be better
Sunak doesn’t quite grasp Britain or Britishness. His wife is also Indian and billionaire. He is detached in multiple ways
Yes but if the UK's first non white PM loses his first election by a landslide that also kills off the prospect of any further ethnic minority leaders of a major UK party for a generation unfortunately
That’s nonsense. It just means the next migrant PM should appoint Advisors on Innate Britishness. Because it is a thing. People with deep roots in a country understand it in a way recent arrivals do not. If your great great grandfather fought at the Somme and your grandfather at Normandy then you will understand Britain and its history a lot better - in your soul - than someone whose parents arrived after WW2
Migrants face this challenge whereevrr they go. But they also bring distinct advantages. A new eye. A fresh perspective. Fewer hang ups
Sunak’s problem seems to be a lack of good advisors. Someone with a sense of Britains military history should have been able to say “mate. You do D day. All of it. End of”
No it isn't. You may not like it but if an ethnic minority PM loses by a landslide to a white male like Starmer the main parties will conclude the UK electorate are just not ready for a non white PM (even Obama of course lost the US white vote in 2008 and 2012, it was the massive black turnout for him, especially in 2012 and most of the Hispanic vote that got him elected and re elected but the UK Hindu population is far smaller than the US African American population).
As you have said only those with direct family links to fighters in WW2 can truly emotionally feel it, that means on your argument white British almost certainly.
In 10 or 20 years when WW2 is as far away as WW1 is now and all veterans are dead it may be less of an issue but for now it is
When, not if, Sunak loses by a landslide it will have absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity.
The Sunak-Normandy error is an overdetermined problem. One angle I haven't seen much is that he was born in 1980. Much younger than other PMs. And for his entire adult life Britain's wars have been domestically controversial rather than nationally unifying. But none of these explains why some trusted advisor did not shout stop.
Yep, I think age is certainly a factor, much more so than the ‘migrant’ rubbish. The 3 features in North British news with vox pops last night were D Day, the impending Taylor Swift-gasm and the Scotland football team prep; kids and young people in the latter two, oldies and late middle agers in the former.
No, it’s the “migrant rubbish” as well. If Sunak had British parents and grandparents he would know in his DNA that D Day is big
I bet even Corbyn gets it. For that reason
This is not a criticism of PMs with foreign ancestry nor a reason for them not to hold office. As I’ve said coming from a new place can be a great advantage. A fresh perspective
What it means is you need good advisors. Didn’t Blair have an advisor who would inform him of the concerns of the common people? What tv they watched? Etc? It’s that but for identity
Sunak’s extra problem is that his wealth further alienates him from the average Brit
This seems harsh and somewhat racist, Leon. You are better than that.
The Sunak-Normandy error is an overdetermined problem. One angle I haven't seen much is that he was born in 1980. Much younger than other PMs. And for his entire adult life Britain's wars have been domestically controversial rather than nationally unifying. But none of these explains why some trusted advisor did not shout stop.
Yep, I think age is certainly a factor, much more so than the ‘migrant’ rubbish. The 3 features in North British news with vox pops last night were D Day, the impending Taylor Swift-gasm and the Scotland football team prep; kids and young people in the latter two, oldies and late middle agers in the former.
No, it’s the “migrant rubbish” as well. If Sunak had British parents and grandparents he would know in his DNA that D Day is big
I bet even Corbyn gets it. For that reason
This is not a criticism of PMs with foreign ancestry nor a reason for them not to hold office. As I’ve said coming from a new place can be a great advantage. A fresh perspective
What it means is you need good advisors. Didn’t Blair have an advisor who would inform him of the concerns of the common people? What tv they watched? Etc? It’s that but for identity
Sunak’s extra problem is that his wealth further alienates him from the average Brit
Its nothing to do with his ethnicity, its just that Sunak is shit.
He was born and bred, went to school and work and and completely grew up in this country.
He's just completely out of touch and incompetent. That's personal to him, not his ethnicity.
Is it possible that his pooled TV clip has actually made it worse? Again?
Oh, I would think so.
He's claimed that the itinerary was set before the GE was called. So he was already planning to skip half the event, because he wasn't planning to speak to ITV at that point.
If he digs any deeper into this hold, he'll be down to the molten core.
What I would be offering Farage right now if I were Sunak.
Alliance between Con and Ref. Reform stand down in all Tory seats where the sitting MP is going for reelection (except Clacton) Tories stand down in all other Tory seats Everywhere else is 50/50. Sunak promises to resign immediately post election. Leader of a merged party to be elected with the MPs of both parties voting for a final two and the final vote being an electoral college of Tory members (50%) and Reform members (50%).
They have about 4 hours to organise it.
It's too late for any such deal, surely?
Nomination papers are already in for c.600 Tories - any agreeing not to stand have to be withdrawn by 4pm today and require the witnessed signature of the candidate.
Those Tory candidates who've just been nominated for (what should have been) a safe seat are not going to sign withdrawal papers to hand the seat to some numpty Reform candidate.
I think this is up there with the Bigoted Woman in terms of GE clusterf**ks. And at least with Mrs Duffy, Brown could be partially forgiven for thinking he wasn’t being recorded….
I think this is up there with the Bigoted Woman in terms of GE clusterf**ks. And at least with Mrs Duffy, Brown could be partially forgiven for thinking he wasn’t being recorded….
For Sunak / Tories, its even worse given that so far the campaign has been big on do your national service.
Comments
Glad you got there in the end. You have always banged on that we build plenty of homes. You always missed the point that these are not necessarily where they are needed. Glad to see that is rectified.
Good for Rachel Reeves.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/waspi-women-accuse-labour-of-betrayal-as-reeves-admits-no-cash-planned-for-them/ar-BB1nKxcE?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=68d92af2f6f7423b85df8ae91bcf3ee2&ei=15
They have picked 3 very privileged leaders in short succession. One was fine, the other two have been very poor. They would be better to find a Thatcher type person who had a normal background, did some normal type job for a while, and wasn't weird like May / Truss.
And this applies to anyone who migrates to anywhere else. It’s not easy to become another nationality and instantly understand the deep feelings and quirks and motivations of that nation. So much in a nation’s identity goes unsaid - it is felt
This is not a problem for the average migrant, all they gotta do is obey the laws. But if you seek to lead that nation then yes it might be an issue. That’s when you get good advisors, which Sunak really really really seems to lack. Plus he is mega rich. He’s just different and detached
And I speak as someone that quite likes him. He seems decent honesty smart hardworking. And tech savvy. And engaging. Chancellor was a good job for him. Or business minister. Or minister for technology or finance. But Prime minister was a massive step too far and here we are
It seems YG picked up the Farageasm last time round, and this time the poll was a little too early to pick up on the D-Day error. (Thank goodness D-Daygate is too ugly and awkward to use.)
Baxtered we have 501/48/0/63.
That is not entirely implausible.
At the going down of the sun,
Rishi will be on ITV One.
Until you can answer that question you end up with all the demand being in London because that is where the work and the opportunities are..
Alanis Morissette, take note.
Next he’s going to sell off the NHS to Rothschild & Co then he’s going to set a cat shelter on fire live on TV.
It is not even a good fake like the one I saw of "Michael Saylor" promising people 2 BTC for every 1 BTC they sent him. Anyone falling for that deserves to be ripped off.
BREAKING: 316 people crossed the Channel yesterday, the Home Office has just announced, the highest number so far in June.
This number does not include the PM...
“What to make of the Green Party? wow! what a charming lot
"Green Party general election candidates have shared “antisemitic” slurs and conspiracy theories, backed pro-Palestinian protests at Auschwitz and justified the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel.
On Thursday night party officials were examining a dossier featuring nearly 20 candidates who have shared offensive material online. Among them were individuals who compared Zionism to cancer and claimed the Hamas atrocities on October 7 were a false flag orchestrated by Israel.
A spokesman for the party said the allegations were “serious and are being treated as such”. Its final candidate list was still being decided before the deadline at 5pm on Friday, the spokesman said."”
https://x.com/simonmontefiore/status/1799021576664625403?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Will putting the govt workers in Darlington turbo charge growth in that area, or relocating HMRC offices into the Toon centre do that. I am not sure it will.
When you are in a doom loop even things that should normally improve your situation have a tendency to reinforce the doom. The Tories were struggling before Truss but she made things far worse such that I think it massively reduced the room for manoeuvre of whoever followed her. At every turn Rishi has one ok option and a dozen bad and terrible ones. Then factor in human error and you get where we are.
Perhaps his handlers thought better not risk it when he has a load of policies to defend, get it done early?
How many of these so-called WASPI women also have DB pensions. Given their demographics a fair few.
Do Corbyn, Thornberry etc really believe Cuban health and education system were top notch under Castro...because all those that fled didn't seem to think so. Its a bit like visiting North Korea now and saying well isn't it lovely, everybody is so happy.
Hopefully things will quieten down now he's back.
HMRC moving into the Toon centre is a good move but that's because it was a faff to get to Longbenton so moving it centrally will increase the commute catchment area so increasing the number of potential people able to work there..
The reality however is that for a lot of firms the catchment area of potential workers is such that there is nowhere you can move to that provides you with the skillset that exists in London.
Take an example such as software development. say 1 in 10000 is a decent developer you can employ. To get 10 developers you need to be in a place where 1,000,000 people can easily get to the office to give you a chance of getting those 10 workers.
The 3 features in North British news with vox pops last night were D Day, the impending Taylor Swift-gasm and the Scotland football team prep; kids and young people in the latter two, oldies and late middle agers in the former.
Liz Truss.
That's not to stay a future Con/Ref alliance couldn't work but it would be more likely to be for 28/29 (something like the higher placed party in each seat gets a clear run)
There might be the argument the papers didn’t ignore it, but the DDay coverage was more important to lead with (which makes the Daily M*rror utter disgrace as true to form).
Don’t know if any newspapers other than Mirror and Guardian will mention it tonight though, especially if Penny puts in great performance in the debate, they will lead with that. Penny the Ange and Farage Slayer [insert Conan with sword graphic]
Are we making an attempt on the record?
Of course this might have zero impact on the actual polls just like every other 'game-changer' this campaign so far.
It will be because he's shit at his job.
That's landing in middle England, more influential than the newspapers.
Yesterday, Sunak handed just as big a present to his opponents and whilst he was finished anyway he may have taken more of his colleagues down with him
Brown's legacy 'bigot' - Sunak leaving the battle field prematurely in front of world leaders and the veterans is something he will never live down
If Starmer can stabilise the ship, get into a generally broad based recovery, then he will stay in office for a while, and the Tories can go through their usual cats in a sack fun time in the first two terms, and maybe recover for a third term.
If Starmer can not fix things and becomes rapidly unpopular, then the whole system will become unstable. You could then see a real breakdown in politics, with the failures of our Victorian political system leading to crisis and paralysis.
Then Putinists like Farage might well get their Trump moment and the shit really hits the fan.
As of now, it could go either way, but the innate conservatism of the system and the country may yet stabilise things. However the slightest thing, something like an early change of Monarch for example, or some epochal disaster, might also lead to a general questioning of our entire system.
After the abject chaos of the Tory misrule, the country needs to settle down. Certainly Farage is the last thing we need at this point, and with no real party behind him, I really do question if Reform UK Ltd. is anything more than a sophisticated astrotrurf operation.
2027 is when they will all be out.
Of course the master campaigning stroke would be to find a relative who was one of, as you say, hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers who fought alongside native Brits.
I bet even Corbyn gets it. For that reason
This is not a criticism of PMs with foreign ancestry nor a reason for them not to hold office. As I’ve said coming from a new place can be a great advantage. A fresh perspective
What it means is you need good advisors. Didn’t Blair have an advisor who would inform him of the concerns of the common people? What tv they watched? Etc? It’s that but for identity
Sunak’s extra problem is that his wealth further alienates him from the average Brit
Forgive my ignorance - what happened?
It is working for me
All the best
So all this talk of Ri$hi losing Richmond because of Catterick and Captain Mordaunt, RNR being unhorsed in Pompey is way overblown.
He was born and bred, went to school and work and and completely grew up in this country.
He's just completely out of touch and incompetent. That's personal to him, not his ethnicity.
He's claimed that the itinerary was set before the GE was called. So he was already planning to skip half the event, because he wasn't planning to speak to ITV at that point.
If he digs any deeper into this hold, he'll be down to the molten core.
Nomination papers are already in for c.600 Tories - any agreeing not to stand have to be withdrawn by 4pm today and require the witnessed signature of the candidate.
Those Tory candidates who've just been nominated for (what should have been) a safe seat are not going to sign withdrawal papers to hand the seat to some numpty Reform candidate.