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.
It will be because he's shit at his job.
It is not his heritage, it is his party.
As Truman said "the buck stops here" - he needs to take responsibility, if he doesn't want to do so, he shouldn't have become the leader and Prime Minister.
And its Sunak himself, not the Party, that has come up with such bullshit as National Service etc. Sunak deciding he couldn't be arsed to spend a day dealing with D-Day as Prime Minister, while campaigning on implementing National Service for the young as a policy is entirely him and not his party.
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.
It's fairly shaky. You have about 30% of the population whose interests are largely ignored and for the moment Farage is their outlet. Previously when Trades Unions meant something they would have had a voice within Labour. Labour has decided instead to chase urban middle class and they have no interest in the chavs and actively disparage them.
Bad mood among some senior Tories. One: “He’s not a fighter, he’s a tit… Napoleon had a nap and lost the battle, Sunak should go down fighting, instead he’s putting his makeup on in the middle of it”. Another: “We will fight them on the beaches… no wait I have a pre rec to do”
Farage doesn’t want a deal. It makes absolutely zero sense for him to hitch himself to the festering corpse of the Tory government now. He also doesn’t want to make it seem like he’s entering deals to try and win a GE - he wants people to think Labour will win. He wants to downplay expectations, so that a Reform surge looks even more impressive and gives him a bigger voice in the reconstitution of the right post GE.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
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.
It is a bit unfortunate that Farage needs to come back in to politics but it is because liberal elites (including the conservative party) have failed to absorb the lessons of Brexit.
I hope we don't see a "Labour landslide is down to Rishi Sunak dissing our WW2 heritage" sentiment taking root.
Of course we will. Sunak is the anointed scapegoat. Nothing to do with the abject failure of Tory governments over the last 14 years, no siree. Sunak stabbed them in the back! And they weren't right wing enough!
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.
My god it isn’t racist. It is a simple fact of migrant life. It would be the same if Sunak was white American or French or Polish
Also - AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN - I actively welcome politicians from migrant backgrounds because they often have new ideas, they aren’t crippled by the hang ups and neuroses and hidebound thinking of those who haven’t moved in 30 generations. I actively approve of immigration for this precise reason. This was my hope for Sunak. That he would be this new kind of PM with an innovative perspective. Sadly not
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.
I do think there's something to the age theory. I was born in 1979 (with British parents and grandparents, if that matters), and although I can clearly see intellectually that this was a bad unforced political error, I don't feel it viscerally as a hugely disrespectful moral error.
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.
It is a bit unfortunate that Farage needs to come back in to politics but it is because liberal elites (including the conservative party) have failed to absorb the lessons of Brexit.
What, that it's a failure, and trying to placate the reactionary right only makes things worse? Those lessons?
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.
It’s not a celebration at all, is it, it’s a commemoration - all those people who are a hundred remembering they wouldn’t have had a life, families, grand children, if Pete hadn’t thrown himself over a hand grenade 80 years ago, to meet the king who tells them he’s hand writing their 100 year card from him soon as he gets back. A commemoration high jacked by politicians to turn it into celebration and do electioneering, which Rishi wisely had nothing to do with, as he found that dis taste full is the counter argument here isn’t it? Apparently someone said down thread, Farage was there till midnight milking the crowd, even Starmer, wisely like Sunak, had buggered off long before that.
Sunak’s team are rubbish at communication’s. ALL politicians behaved disgraceful yesterday, hi jacking the commemoration for themselves, particularly those who stayed on longer than Rishi. They only need to read PB for good idea’s.
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.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But its bullshit lies.
We're running at about 99% capacity occupied nationwide, which is unhealthy.
There are simply not enough homes. There are not "plenty" anywhere. Keep asking you to name any LAs with supposedly a healthy abundance of homes (eg 10%+ unoccupied as is bog standard nationwide in most other countries) and to that there's just silence.
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
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.
I do think there's something to the age theory. I was born in 1979 (with British parents and grandparents, if that matters), and although I can clearly see intellectually that this was a bad unforced political error, I don't feel it viscerally as a hugely disrespectful moral error.
I was born in 1982 in the UK and did most of my time in school overseas (including all my high school years) and I do see it as a hugely disrespectful error.
This feels like a more important news story today than precisely when Sunak departed Northern France. Or am I the only person on PB who uses public services?
I am parking my tanks on the Tory lawn. The absolute outrage amongst Tory voters and even members continues up here. So if they want a full time MP, a local candidate to stop the SNP, that choice is now me... https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1799037268507967998
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.
It's fairly shaky. You have about 30% of the population whose interests are largely ignored and for the moment Farage is their outlet. Previously when Trades Unions meant something they would have had a voice within Labour. Labour has decided instead to chase urban middle class and they have no interest in the chavs and actively disparage them.
Not so. SKS has been chasing the WWC voters who used to be Labour or Stay Home, who voted Leave in 2016 and for Boris/Brexit in 2019. They have been the number one target, not the urban middle class. Rebuilding the Red Wall has been, still is, the core strategy. That gets Labour back in the game and was the essence of the Starmer project. The rest is icing on the cake and was not anticipated.
This feels like a more important news story today than precisely when Sunak departed Northern France. Or am I the only person on PB who uses public services?
The collapse of the public services is why the Conservative Party is in this polling hole. D-Daygate is Rishi still digging.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
Sure. But what is the point of more housebuilding in areas like South Shields where the population actually contracted in between the censuses.
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
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.
It's fairly shaky. You have about 30% of the population whose interests are largely ignored and for the moment Farage is their outlet. Previously when Trades Unions meant something they would have had a voice within Labour. Labour has decided instead to chase urban middle class and they have no interest in the chavs and actively disparage them.
Not so. SKS has been chasing the WWC voters who used to be Labour or Stay Home, who voted Leave in 2016 and for Boris/Brexit in 2019. They have been the number one target, not the urban middle class. Rebuilding the Red Wall has been, still is, the core strategy. That gets Labour back in the game and was the essence of the Starmer project. The rest is icing on the cake and was not anticipated.
Which of his policies are targeted at the Red Wall ?
This feels like a more important news story today than precisely when Sunak departed Northern France. Or am I the only person on PB who uses public services?
There is absolutely no denying the crisis in public services and it is why all politicians are frightened of being truthful in case they scare the troops ( I just realised what I did there)
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.
I think if he can stabilise things then he can profit from the stench of this dying Con Govt persisting for some time. One thing is for sure if Starmer makes a total mess of it and doesn't turn it round in five years then the key gainers from that will not be the Con Party. Their electorate will have suffered another 5 years of attrition while everyone else really dislikes them now. A populist insurgency (fuelled by BEs) on the 'right' and a Green/LD upsurge on the 'left' would compete for the pickings
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
It would be unprecedented. I think you’re right it would probably have to be Penny, but only in a “I am the face of the future and you should vote for me to prevent Labour having too much of a landslide.” But it just feels so unachievable- the campaign would have to be relaunched, the literature pulped, what happens to the policies? How can a new leader get up to speed so quickly?
And to be fair, not entirely sure what is in it for Penny. Maybe to save her seat, but TBH if they really do face a catastrophic result and she loses she’s probably better off staying out of parliament for 5 years and trying to get back in a by election or the next GE. She’s in her early 50s. She’s still got time on her side, relatively.
Love him or loathe him but Boris would have never come home early. he would be taking a thousand pictures with veterans and avoiding interviews at all costs. Boris had political instincts in spades, Sunak has minus 1000.
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
A pedant writes, Cameron cannot renounce his peerage because he is a life peer, not a hereditary peer (blame Viscount Stansgate for his appalling lack of foresight) although he can renounce his right to sit in the House of Lords and he still has four hours to get his nomination papers signed to stand for a Commons seat.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
Sure. But what is the point of more housebuilding in areas like South Shields where the population actually contracted in between the censuses.
Because objectively there aren't enough houses, even in South Shields?
What percentage of houses are vacant in South Shields?
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
It would be unprecedented. I think you’re right it would probably have to be Penny, but only in a “I am the face of the future and you should vote for me to prevent Labour having too much of a landslide.” But it just feels so unachievable- the campaign would have to be relaunched, the literature pulped, what happens to the policies? How can a new leader get up to speed so quickly?
And to be fair, not entirely sure what is in it for Penny. Maybe to save her seat, but TBH if they really do face a catastrophic result and she loses she’s probably better off staying out of parliament for 5 years and trying to get back in a by election or the next GE. She’s in her early 50s. She’s still got time on her side, relatively.
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….
And she was bigoted. Which many people seem to forget. "Where are they all flocking from?"
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.
I don't think its racist to say that not having ancestors in WW2 might affect your perception of the commemorations. Most people in their thirties will have had live family members from the era. And it does add something to the commemorations knowing a late grandfather was on the minesweepers or a great uncle was killed in the war.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
Sure. But what is the point of more housebuilding in areas like South Shields where the population actually contracted in between the censuses.
The population contracting doesn't mean that there is enough housing.
Today's response about D Day - "it's the Conservative Party led by me which is increasing the amount of investment that we're putting into our Armed Forces to 2.5% of GDP" - is pretty much on a par with his comment to the man whose mother had died of COVID - "it was probably in that same period of time that you got to know me as chancellor ... I popped up on your TV screens [and] announced the furlough scheme".
I am parking my tanks on the Tory lawn. The absolute outrage amongst Tory voters and even members continues up here. So if they want a full time MP, a local candidate to stop the SNP, that choice is now me... https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1799037268507967998
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.
Hope you're on the mend TSE!
Should be discharged this afternoon then weeks/months of recovery before I can resume a normal life.
Yuk. Not fun. I’m impressed at your sangfroid in not moaning about it more
It makes you appreciate other things in life.
I have a brilliant bosses/team who have made it clear that I am not to work until they see a letter from a doctor confirming I am ready for work.
As tragedies goes being off work (and getting paid for it) during a major football tournament and T20 World Cup is brutal but I will endure.
In some ways the timing is perfect given the GE timetable.
Feel guilty about stress I’ve put my family through though.
Yes. Nothing like a bit of perspective
Last night Odessa came under quite serious bombardment (as late night PBers know - I saw and heard it from my balcony). Now the sun is out and everyone is sitting around outside my hotel in this charming little pavilion of cafes drinking excellent macchiatos. Could be Verona or Vienna. Except all the men have military haircuts
The Odessans are teaching me perspective. They really are. Life goes on
I am parking my tanks on the Tory lawn. The absolute outrage amongst Tory voters and even members continues up here. So if they want a full time MP, a local candidate to stop the SNP, that choice is now me... https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1799037268507967998
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
Cameron would work and could be PM from the Lords, provided the Tories abandoned the pretence that they are in any way likely to be close to winning the election. You could then have a rejigged campaign to salvage the Tory party’s fortunes to have a higher base to rebuild from.
Anyoneknow what the record number of posts in a thread is?
Are we making an attempt on the record?
But the big long threads seem to be working well for discussion though? In relation to days with lots of threads to jump across to, that can be discussion(s) killer, this feels okay?
But editors also need to be mindful lots of lurkers come for the quality and independent thoughts in the headers, i suspect.
A focus on quality not quantity of headers, and longer threads for discussion seems good balance to me.
I hope we don't see a "Labour landslide is down to Rishi Sunak dissing our WW2 heritage" sentiment taking root.
Agree, but I hope we don't get a sentiment that the Labour landslide was down to any one factor. There are hundreds, and every Tory-Lab switch, or Tory-other switch, or Tory-DNV switch will have been driven by different reasons - cost of living or partygate or immigration or Pinchergate or the post office or the cancellation of HS2 or Truss's appointment or Truss's removal or the height of Sunak's trousers or... There's very rarely a single reason.
WTF kind of excuse is “it was pre-arranged” anyway? Nobody cares if it was pre-arranged, it looks bad because you did it, not because of when it went into your diary.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
Anyoneknow what the record number of posts in a thread is?
Are we making an attempt on the record?
But the big long threads seem to be working well for discussion though? In relation to days with lots of threads to jump across to, that can be discussion(s) killer, this feels okay?
But editors also need to be mindful lots of lurkers come for the quality and independent thoughts in the headers, i suspect.
A focus on quality not quantity of headers, and longer threads for discussion seems good balance to me.
In fairness to the editors, OGH has stepped down, TSE is off sick and Robert lives in another timezone. It's not surprising if we have to talk amongst ourselves for a little longer than usual.
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
Cameron would work and could be PM from the Lords, provided the Tories abandoned the pretence that they are in any way likely to be close to winning the election. You could then have a rejigged campaign to salvage the Tory party’s fortunes to have a higher base to rebuild from.
PM doesn't even have to be in the Lords strictly speaking, although I doubt Charles wants to go there on the old constitution.
WTF kind of excuse is “it was pre-arranged” anyway? Nobody cares if it was pre-arranged, it looks bad because you did it, not because of when it went into your diary.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
It being pre-arranged if anything makes it worse.
Why would he have pre-arranged to abandon the services half-way through, when he had no other commitments at the time?
Ain't no doubt it's plain to see Mr Sunak is no good for me Came knocking at my door I'd be a fool to ask for more
He says, 'I told the truth in the debate.' He's lying 'I meant to be on that beach, that's true.' He's lying 'I will always be your friend and cut taxes.' Why does he even pretend?
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.
It is a bit unfortunate that Farage needs to come back in to politics but it is because liberal elites (including the conservative party) have failed to absorb the lessons of Brexit.
What, that it's a failure, and trying to placate the reactionary right only makes things worse? Those lessons?
The thing that I would observe is that popular revolts against mass immigration, particularly illegal immigration, are bringing the 'populist right' to power across Europe, and probably also back to power in the US. It seems obvious to me that it is the wrong response to describe those revolting as 'fascists' etc, try and get them cancelled, outlaw them by laws about hate speech, etc. This kind of suppression of pretty mainsteam views outside the 'liberal elite' isn't going to work. Maybe just let people speak and let them participate in the discourse, which is what Farage does by representing them.
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
Cameron would work and could be PM from the Lords, provided the Tories abandoned the pretence that they are in any way likely to be close to winning the election. You could then have a rejigged campaign to salvage the Tory party’s fortunes to have a higher base to rebuild from.
A pedant writes, Cameron could not be Prime Minister from the Lords because he would need to be leader of his party and the Conservative Party leader has to be an MP.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
If the future is "we built a ton of houses in the areas where the local economies are strongest, and the result was they did so amazingly well we still couldn't keep up with their housing requirements" that sounds like a pretty decent outcome to me.
There is a genuine problem with the way economic success seems to be quite regionally specific and other areas get "left behind". I don't know a solution for that and I suspect there is no straightforward one, or somebody in the last four decades would have done it by now. But I'm pretty sure that "restrict the areas that are doing better to hold them back to not so far ahead of the rest" is not the best plan.
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.
My god it isn’t racist. It is a simple fact of migrant life. It would be the same if Sunak was white American or French or Polish
Also - AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN - I actively welcome politicians from migrant backgrounds because they often have new ideas, they aren’t crippled by the hang ups and neuroses and hidebound thinking of those who haven’t moved in 30 generations. I actively approve of immigration for this precise reason. This was my hope for Sunak. That he would be this new kind of PM with an innovative perspective. Sadly not
I do not approve of net 2.4m migrants in 3 years
Sunak isn't a migrant, he was born in Southampton.
Calling him a migrant can only be because of his race, not his immigration status.
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.
This is so much worse
Attack line for the next 24 hours - "Sunak wants young people to do twelve months of National Service? He can't even do twelve hours!"
"I understand from British sources that the itinerary for Thursday was arranged six to seven weeks ago - before the election was called, although at a time when clearly the prime minister must have been thinking about it.
In other words, the plan all along was to miss that final event - and so, the claim goes, the decision to come back early wasn’t driven by doing the interview with ITV Mr Sunak recorded when he got back."
Anyoneknow what the record number of posts in a thread is?
Are we making an attempt on the record?
But the big long threads seem to be working well for discussion though? In relation to days with lots of threads to jump across to, that can be discussion(s) killer, this feels okay?
But editors also need to be mindful lots of lurkers come for the quality and independent thoughts in the headers, i suspect.
A focus on quality not quantity of headers, and longer threads for discussion seems good balance to me.
In fairness to the editors, OGH has stepped down, TSE is off sick and Robert lives in another timezone. It's not surprising if we have to talk amongst ourselves for a little longer than usual.
The depleted editorial team should use OGH's old tricks of starting a thread every time he saw a tweet about a new opinion poll, and when he didn't, regularly starting generic Nighthawks threads. We do not need the editors to spend the whole day crafting thousand-word headers.
WTF kind of excuse is “it was pre-arranged” anyway? Nobody cares if it was pre-arranged, it looks bad because you did it, not because of when it went into your diary.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
It being pre-arranged if anything makes it worse.
Why would he have pre-arranged to abandon the services half-way through, when he had no other commitments at the time?
Absolutely, and then once you’ve sloped off early arrange a bit of naked politicking whilst the rest of the political class is engaged in saluting the DDay generation. If I were a Tory candidate in a reasonable prospect I’d be apoplectic.
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.
My god it isn’t racist. It is a simple fact of migrant life. It would be the same if Sunak was white American or French or Polish
Also - AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN - I actively welcome politicians from migrant backgrounds because they often have new ideas, they aren’t crippled by the hang ups and neuroses and hidebound thinking of those who haven’t moved in 30 generations. I actively approve of immigration for this precise reason. This was my hope for Sunak. That he would be this new kind of PM with an innovative perspective. Sadly not
I do not approve of net 2.4m migrants in 3 years
Sunak isn't a migrant, he was born in Southampton.
Calling him a migrant can only be because of his race, not his immigration status.
That is open and shut racism.
Indeed it is. Time to exercise the "I misspoke" retraction defence @Leon.
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.
It's fairly shaky. You have about 30% of the population whose interests are largely ignored and for the moment Farage is their outlet. Previously when Trades Unions meant something they would have had a voice within Labour. Labour has decided instead to chase urban middle class and they have no interest in the chavs and actively disparage them.
Not so. SKS has been chasing the WWC voters who used to be Labour or Stay Home, who voted Leave in 2016 and for Boris/Brexit in 2019. They have been the number one target, not the urban middle class. Rebuilding the Red Wall has been, still is, the core strategy. That gets Labour back in the game and was the essence of the Starmer project. The rest is icing on the cake and was not anticipated.
Which of his policies are targeted at the Red Wall ?
I am parking my tanks on the Tory lawn. The absolute outrage amongst Tory voters and even members continues up here. So if they want a full time MP, a local candidate to stop the SNP, that choice is now me... https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1799037268507967998
Here in Aberdeenshire... deserves a prize for understatement of the year. Chapeau!
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
Cameron would work and could be PM from the Lords, provided the Tories abandoned the pretence that they are in any way likely to be close to winning the election. You could then have a rejigged campaign to salvage the Tory party’s fortunes to have a higher base to rebuild from.
A pedant writes, Cameron could not be Prime Minister from the Lords because he would need to be leader of his party and the Conservative Party leader has to be an MP.
He wouldn’t need to be leader, Churchill wasn’t initially. Given it would be for 3-4 weeks max it wouldn’t matter.
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.
That has always been the point I wanted to make.
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
Sure. But what is the point of more housebuilding in areas like South Shields where the population actually contracted in between the censuses.
Because objectively there aren't enough houses, even in South Shields?
What percentage of houses are vacant in South Shields?
If rightmove is correct there are a total of 33 vacants houses to rent - which is way less than 1% - I drive post at least 30 roads that I know have over 100 houses in them when visiting my parents.
WTF kind of excuse is “it was pre-arranged” anyway? Nobody cares if it was pre-arranged, it looks bad because you did it, not because of when it went into your diary.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
"And this election is about character, who you have in your mind’s eye when you make decisions.
And for me there was only one place I was going to be, which is there to pay my respects to the veterans.
And to say thank you to them on behalf of all of us, including my young children who, as I said to many of the veterans, were pretty carefree yesterday going to school. But that was down to their sacrifice, and the sacrifice particularly of those colleagues of theirs who didn’t make it back.
I made a choice yesterday about what I would do as leader of the Labour party and as a candidate to be prime minister and I knew I should be there. This was not a discussion.
It was my duty to be there, it was my privilege to be there.
Privilege is a word that is probably overused in politics but I felt privileged to be able to be with veterans who had fought on D-day against the odds to liberate Europe and to allow me to grow up in peace and freedom and democracy."
Of course he would say that - but he knows that this is what to say in the situation.
EU elections have started and the first unofficial results are in from t'Netherlands. Wilder's PVV have gained but just failed to take first place, and still in the lead are a Green-Left party. We don't really have the latter in the UK: although the UK Greens are lefty they are not formally lefty, but in Europe it's more formalised and mergered/allianced. I think the term "deep-green/deep-red" is used for them, but happy to be corrected.
Anyoneknow what the record number of posts in a thread is?
Are we making an attempt on the record?
But the big long threads seem to be working well for discussion though? In relation to days with lots of threads to jump across to, that can be discussion(s) killer, this feels okay?
But editors also need to be mindful lots of lurkers come for the quality and independent thoughts in the headers, i suspect.
A focus on quality not quantity of headers, and longer threads for discussion seems good balance to me.
In fairness to the editors, OGH has stepped down, TSE is off sick and Robert lives in another timezone. It's not surprising if we have to talk amongst ourselves for a little longer than usual.
Oh I didn't realize TSE was unwell. Hope not serious and speedy recovery.
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.
Exactly. Anyone anywhere, in the world with some kind of knowledge about the second world war knows how important D-Day was. This should be History 101 for any prime minister of the UK.
A land fit for heroes? The word veterans grates a bit too. The spin teams have picked it up from the States. Rishi will be thanking Vietnam vets before the month is out.
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.
My god it isn’t racist. It is a simple fact of migrant life. It would be the same if Sunak was white American or French or Polish
Also - AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN - I actively welcome politicians from migrant backgrounds because they often have new ideas, they aren’t crippled by the hang ups and neuroses and hidebound thinking of those who haven’t moved in 30 generations. I actively approve of immigration for this precise reason. This was my hope for Sunak. That he would be this new kind of PM with an innovative perspective. Sadly not
I do not approve of net 2.4m migrants in 3 years
Sunak isn't a migrant, he was born in Southampton.
Calling him a migrant can only be because of his race, not his immigration status.
WTF kind of excuse is “it was pre-arranged” anyway? Nobody cares if it was pre-arranged, it looks bad because you did it, not because of when it went into your diary.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
It being pre-arranged if anything makes it worse.
Why would he have pre-arranged to abandon the services half-way through, when he had no other commitments at the time?
Because he didn't think it was important. It was a chore and Mr Sunak doesn't do the chores. Now bow down before his magnificence and vote him another five years
I am parking my tanks on the Tory lawn. The absolute outrage amongst Tory voters and even members continues up here. So if they want a full time MP, a local candidate to stop the SNP, that choice is now me... https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1799037268507967998
I'd vote for you - but I'm in Norfolk
I thought the vid was okay. Stronger if you had mentioned getting value for money for the taxes you pay, and that your main focus will be on delivering safer streets and less crime.
The opening of “Hi, I am” felt a bit weak. What are the alternatives? 🤔
You also need to take your voice a bit deeper. And have your notes next to camera (easily done, someone holds it for you there) so you are looking into camera the whole time.
A land fit for heroes? The word veterans grates a bit too. The spin teams have picked it up from the States. Rishi will be thanking Vietnam vets before the month is out.
Yeah I love my 30% or whatever it is off rail fares but I don't love the name "Veterans Railcard" I use to get it.
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.
It's fairly shaky. You have about 30% of the population whose interests are largely ignored and for the moment Farage is their outlet. Previously when Trades Unions meant something they would have had a voice within Labour. Labour has decided instead to chase urban middle class and they have no interest in the chavs and actively disparage them.
Not so. SKS has been chasing the WWC voters who used to be Labour or Stay Home, who voted Leave in 2016 and for Boris/Brexit in 2019. They have been the number one target, not the urban middle class. Rebuilding the Red Wall has been, still is, the core strategy. That gets Labour back in the game and was the essence of the Starmer project. The rest is icing on the cake and was not anticipated.
Which of his policies are targeted at the Red Wall ?
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.
Hope you're on the mend TSE!
Should be discharged this afternoon then weeks/months of recovery before I can resume a normal life.
Yuk. Not fun. I’m impressed at your sangfroid in not moaning about it more
It makes you appreciate other things in life.
I have a brilliant bosses/team who have made it clear that I am not to work until they see a letter from a doctor confirming I am ready for work.
As tragedies goes being off work (and getting paid for it) during a major football tournament and T20 World Cup is brutal but I will endure.
In some ways the timing is perfect given the GE timetable.
Feel guilty about stress I’ve put my family through though.
Yes. Nothing like a bit of perspective
Last night Odessa came under quite serious bombardment (as late night PBers know - I saw and heard it from my balcony). Now the sun is out and everyone is sitting around outside my hotel in this charming little pavilion of cafes drinking excellent macchiatos. Could be Verona or Vienna. Except all the men have military haircuts
The Odessans are teaching me perspective. They really are. Life goes on
WTF kind of excuse is “it was pre-arranged” anyway? Nobody cares if it was pre-arranged, it looks bad because you did it, not because of when it went into your diary.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
It being pre-arranged if anything makes it worse.
Why would he have pre-arranged to abandon the services half-way through, when he had no other commitments at the time?
Because he didn't think it was important. It was a chore and Mr Sunak doesn't do the chores. Now bow down before his magnificence and vote him another five years
Anyoneknow what the record number of posts in a thread is?
Are we making an attempt on the record?
But the big long threads seem to be working well for discussion though? In relation to days with lots of threads to jump across to, that can be discussion(s) killer, this feels okay?
But editors also need to be mindful lots of lurkers come for the quality and independent thoughts in the headers, i suspect.
A focus on quality not quantity of headers, and longer threads for discussion seems good balance to me.
In fairness to the editors, OGH has stepped down, TSE is off sick and Robert lives in another timezone. It's not surprising if we have to talk amongst ourselves for a little longer than usual.
It wasn't a criticism, just a query.
I've often thought there should be occasional 'talk-amongst-yourselves' threads, which Nighthawks was,in effect.
We're helped at the moment by a lot happening, so long threads are just fine. As it happens, I'm personally keen to get back to some discussion of the PO scandal. This week's interrogation of Alice Perkins was riveting and revealing. I've been in touch with Ms Cyclefree about it and was kind of hoping she would drop in, but as usual she has plenty on her plate, and in any case, the Site is rightly preoccupied with election matters.
Focus Group of One Alert. I've been waiting in all day for my new garage door openers to be delivered. They just arrived and after the van driver said Ingerland had "no fucking chance" in the Euros his parting quip was that "Richy" Sunak was a wanker. He actually pronounced it /ˈrɪʧi/ which would have gratified Scott_XP and further enraged Casino. Were such a thing possible.
James O'Malley @Psythor · 2h The thing I don’t get about Rishi skipping D-Day is that it was basically his last chance to be a big, important international statesman at a major international event like that. Wouldn’t you want to do that, knowing you’ll never have another chance?
There's also the G7 next week where the topic of conversation may well be where did you get to last week...
"And this election is about character, who you have in your mind’s eye when you make decisions.
And for me there was only one place I was going to be, which is there to pay my respects to the veterans.
And to say thank you to them on behalf of all of us, including my young children who, as I said to many of the veterans, were pretty carefree yesterday going to school. But that was down to their sacrifice, and the sacrifice particularly of those colleagues of theirs who didn’t make it back.
I made a choice yesterday about what I would do as leader of the Labour party and as a candidate to be prime minister and I knew I should be there. This was not a discussion.
It was my duty to be there, it was my privilege to be there.
Privilege is a word that is probably overused in politics but I felt privileged to be able to be with veterans who had fought on D-day against the odds to liberate Europe and to allow me to grow up in peace and freedom and democracy."
Of course he would say that - but he knows that this is what to say in the situation.
Ah yes the veterans.. yet he's quite happy to let Northern Ireland veterans in their 70s and 80s be pursued through the courts while PIRA vets walk free.
Btw, for what it's worth I've backed Labour in Sunak's constituency at 4.5 and Con 150-199 at 6.5 (both Ladbrokes). Otherwise, my only GE bet is an old one for Labour to win a majority. Feeling quietly confident that'll come in.
I hope we don't see a "Labour landslide is down to Rishi Sunak dissing our WW2 heritage" sentiment taking root.
Agree, but I hope we don't get a sentiment that the Labour landslide was down to any one factor. There are hundreds, and every Tory-Lab switch, or Tory-other switch, or Tory-DNV switch will have been driven by different reasons - cost of living or partygate or immigration or Pinchergate or the post office or the cancellation of HS2 or Truss's appointment or Truss's removal or the height of Sunak's trousers or... There's very rarely a single reason.
For me, Truss is when this election became unwinnable for the Cons. But at that point there remained a wide spread of realistic possible outcomes. Now it would appear it's a Blair type landslide for SKS or a win so big as to need a new word. As you say, there's no single reason for something like this. There's loads of reasons.
Comments
Step forward Mr Johnny Mercer...
And its Sunak himself, not the Party, that has come up with such bullshit as National Service etc. Sunak deciding he couldn't be arsed to spend a day dealing with D-Day as Prime Minister, while campaigning on implementing National Service for the young as a policy is entirely him and not his party.
Bad mood among some senior Tories. One: “He’s not a fighter, he’s a tit… Napoleon had a nap and lost the battle, Sunak should go down fighting, instead he’s putting his makeup on in the middle of it”. Another: “We will fight them on the beaches… no wait I have a pre rec to do”
But even then, I suspect more housebuilding in and around London, Edinburgh etc will just serve to keep pushing those economies on, never really solve the housing crisis there. Vicious cycle.
Please make it stop .
"Sunak apologises after calling Lucy Letby hardworking".
Also - AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN - I actively welcome politicians from migrant backgrounds because they often have new ideas, they aren’t crippled by the hang ups and neuroses and hidebound thinking of those who haven’t moved in 30 generations. I actively approve of immigration for this precise reason. This was my hope for Sunak. That he would be this new kind of PM with an innovative perspective. Sadly not
I do not approve of net 2.4m migrants in 3 years
Sunak’s team are rubbish at communication’s. ALL politicians behaved disgraceful yesterday, hi jacking the commemoration for themselves, particularly those who stayed on longer than Rishi. They only need to read PB for good idea’s.
We're running at about 99% capacity occupied nationwide, which is unhealthy.
There are simply not enough homes. There are not "plenty" anywhere. Keep asking you to name any LAs with supposedly a healthy abundance of homes (eg 10%+ unoccupied as is bog standard nationwide in most other countries) and to that there's just silence.
Because you can't name them, as its not true.
But the issue is what would they do then?
The obvious person to take over would be Cameron but he would have to renounce his peerage by 4PM (would that even be possible?) and then be nominated for the best seat possible. And would he want to lose his peerage when no chance of winning the election.
If not Cameron, then the only practical thing would be for the Cabinet to choose a new leader. I reckon they would choose Mordaunt as the one most likely to win the most Con seats.
This feels like a more important news story today than precisely when Sunak departed Northern France. Or am I the only person on PB who uses public services?
I have a brilliant bosses/team who have made it clear that I am not to work until they see a letter from a doctor confirming I am ready for work.
As tragedies goes being off work (and getting paid for it) during a major football tournament and T20 World Cup is brutal but I will endure.
In some ways the timing is perfect given the GE timetable.
Feel guilty about stress I’ve put my family through though.
https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1799037268507967998
Plenty of entertainment to take your mind off things.
I trust that this is the end of the matter.
(Just channeling my inner Casino/HY there for a moment.)
And to be fair, not entirely sure what is in it for Penny. Maybe to save her seat, but TBH if they really do face a catastrophic result and she loses she’s probably better off staying out of parliament for 5 years and trying to get back in a by election or the next GE. She’s in her early 50s. She’s still got time on her side, relatively.
What percentage of houses are vacant in South Shields?
However, they will understand and be with you on your recovery
What is the occupancy rate of properties there?
Last night Odessa came under quite serious bombardment (as late night PBers know - I saw and heard it from my balcony). Now the sun is out and everyone is sitting around outside my hotel in this charming little pavilion of cafes drinking excellent macchiatos. Could be Verona or Vienna. Except all the men have military haircuts
The Odessans are teaching me perspective. They really are. Life goes on
But editors also need to be mindful lots of lurkers come for the quality and independent thoughts in the headers, i suspect.
A focus on quality not quantity of headers, and longer threads for discussion seems good balance to me.
I cannot believe that Rishi’s comms team like him, or that he is listening to them.
Why would he have pre-arranged to abandon the services half-way through, when he had no other commitments at the time?
Mr Sunak is no good for me
Came knocking at my door
I'd be a fool to ask for more
He says, 'I told the truth in the debate.'
He's lying
'I meant to be on that beach, that's true.'
He's lying
'I will always be your friend and cut taxes.'
Why does he even pretend?
(With apologies to the great Jimmy Nail)
There is a genuine problem with the way economic success seems to be quite regionally specific and other areas get "left behind". I don't know a solution for that and I suspect there is no straightforward one, or somebody in the last four decades would have done it by now. But I'm pretty sure that "restrict the areas that are doing better to hold them back to not so far ahead of the rest" is not the best plan.
Calling him a migrant can only be because of his race, not his immigration status.
That is open and shut racism.
"Sunak wants young people to do twelve months of National Service? He can't even do twelve hours!"
"I understand from British sources that the itinerary for Thursday was arranged six to seven weeks ago - before the election was called, although at a time when clearly the prime minister must have been thinking about it.
In other words, the plan all along was to miss that final event - and so, the claim goes, the decision to come back early wasn’t driven by doing the interview with ITV Mr Sunak recorded when he got back."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nnz0w41kvo
https://x.com/zero_4/status/1799040330962186503
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^1228&index=24&propertyTypes=&includeLetAgreed=false&mustHave=&dontShow=&furnishTypes=&keywords=
Now that isn't an answer to how many houses are empty but it's an accurate one for what is available to rent.
"And this election is about character, who you have in your mind’s eye when you make decisions.
And for me there was only one place I was going to be, which is there to pay my respects to the veterans.
And to say thank you to them on behalf of all of us, including my young children who, as I said to many of the veterans, were pretty carefree yesterday going to school. But that was down to their sacrifice, and the sacrifice particularly of those colleagues of theirs who didn’t make it back.
I made a choice yesterday about what I would do as leader of the Labour party and as a candidate to be prime minister and I knew I should be there. This was not a discussion.
It was my duty to be there, it was my privilege to be there.
Privilege is a word that is probably overused in politics but I felt privileged to be able to be with veterans who had fought on D-day against the odds to liberate Europe and to allow me to grow up in peace and freedom and democracy."
Of course he would say that - but he knows that this is what to say in the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7HYOWj6Nlg
(narrator: this is why Viewcode was so keen to publish an article on parties. And yes, the youtube uses the political groups to explain them)
The opening of “Hi, I am” felt a bit weak. What are the alternatives? 🤔
You also need to take your voice a bit deeper. And have your notes next to camera (easily done, someone holds it for you there) so you are looking into camera the whole time.
A decent c+ effort.
I've often thought there should be occasional 'talk-amongst-yourselves' threads, which Nighthawks was,in effect.
We're helped at the moment by a lot happening, so long threads are just fine. As it happens, I'm personally keen to get back to some discussion of the PO scandal. This week's interrogation of Alice Perkins was riveting and revealing. I've been in touch with Ms Cyclefree about it and was kind of hoping she would drop in, but as usual she has plenty on her plate, and in any case, the Site is rightly preoccupied with election matters.
So laters, perhaps.
D-Daygate cut through = 3 feet high and rising.
James O'Malley
@Psythor
·
2h
The thing I don’t get about Rishi skipping D-Day is that it was basically his last chance to be a big, important international statesman at a major international event like that. Wouldn’t you want to do that, knowing you’ll never have another chance?
There's also the G7 next week where the topic of conversation may well be where did you get to last week...
Funny old world.
Lol