How the general election would have looked under different voting systems – politicalbetting.com

Luckyguy1983 said:

Burgessian said:

Interesting article by John Redwood on how to grow the economy. Tip to Rachel: learn from Joe Biden. Not sure what to make of the Vulcan. Obviously bright but possessed of a tin ear.

"It is a pity Rachel Reeve did not look across the Atlantic, to a Democratic president much to her liking, and copy some of his better ideas. During his four years in office Joe Biden allowed more oil and gas drilling – on top of the 50 per cent increase under Donald Trump – permitting more cheaper energy to be made available to American business.

"He had a strong onshoring policy for more industrial investment, again building on Trump’s successful push for more home-based industry. Like his predecessor, Biden used tariffs and bans against China where he thought they were competing unfairly or undermining American national security interests."

https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/11/john-redwood-if-labour-really-wanted-to-deliver-growth-they-should-take-lessons-from-biden/

I have said the same about Biden's aggressive economic policies - which also included getting biddable countries to increase Corporation Tax. Oddly, PB's Biden defenders (of which there are many) take the rather dickless stance that that's OK for the gaffer but we shouldn't do the same in case we offend someone. Or something.

The US has far more leeway on the public finances than we do.

Andy_JS said:

This is the biggest lot of nonsense you will ever read.

"73.7% of votes did not directly affect the outcome in 2024 –21.2 million votes in total."

Every vote was important in deciding whether or not a constituency was marginal or not. We see this all the time. Seats which used to be safe are now marginal, because voters decided they ought to be, and vice versa.

Yes. It's like saying that the only vote that ever counts in an election is the extra one in a vote won by a single vote, and all the others are wasted. In some sort of rationalist sense this is true. But it is not ttrue about politics.

If (I think they won't) Reform sweep the board next time, all those pent up thousands of 'wasted' votes in Bootle and South Holland in 2024 will form part of the causation process by which it occurred.

algarkirk said:

Andy_JS said:

This is the biggest lot of nonsense you will ever read.

"73.7% of votes did not directly affect the outcome in 2024 –21.2 million votes in total."

Every vote was important in deciding whether or not a constituency was marginal or not. We see this all the time. Seats which used to be safe are now marginal, because voters decided they ought to be, and vice versa.

Yes. It's like saying that the only vote that ever counts in an election is the extra one in a vote won by a single vote, and all the others are wasted. In some sort of rationalist sense this is true. But it is not ttrue about politics.

If (I think they won't) Reform sweep the board next time, all those pent up thousands of 'wasted' votes in Bootle and South Holland in 2024 will form part of the causation process by which it occurred.

Yes, reductively every vote is a wasted one because the overall outcome would be the same without it.

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

algarkirk said:

Andy_JS said:

This is the biggest lot of nonsense you will ever read.

"73.7% of votes did not directly affect the outcome in 2024 –21.2 million votes in total."

Every vote was important in deciding whether or not a constituency was marginal or not. We see this all the time. Seats which used to be safe are now marginal, because voters decided they ought to be, and vice versa.

Yes. It's like saying that the only vote that ever counts in an election is the extra one in a vote won by a single vote, and all the others are wasted. In some sort of rationalist sense this is true. But it is not ttrue about politics.

No. If a candidate wins by one vote, every single vote for him or her has counted since if any one of those voters had stayed on the sofa, they wouldn’t have won (barring the coin toss that follows a tie).

The problem with our voting system is that large numbers of people can vote for a party across the country, that has a distinct viewpoint and significant but broadly-spread appeal, and come out of the election with next to no representation at all.

MattW said:

The Health Secretary Statement is making a statement on Puberty Blockers on in the Commons.

An indefinite ban is being imposed.

'These should never have been used until after enough evidence being available' sounds like a potential large incoming compensation bill, if the NHS or NHS staff were involved.

If the chances of winning substantial compensation become significantly higher, more people might suddenly decide their formerly desirable transition was actually an injury after all.

Good afternoon, everybody.

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Burgessian said:

Interesting article by John Redwood on how to grow the economy. Tip to Rachel: learn from Joe Biden. Not sure what to make of the Vulcan. Obviously bright but possessed of a tin ear.

"It is a pity Rachel Reeve did not look across the Atlantic, to a Democratic president much to her liking, and copy some of his better ideas. During his four years in office Joe Biden allowed more oil and gas drilling – on top of the 50 per cent increase under Donald Trump – permitting more cheaper energy to be made available to American business.

"He had a strong onshoring policy for more industrial investment, again building on Trump’s successful push for more home-based industry. Like his predecessor, Biden used tariffs and bans against China where he thought they were competing unfairly or undermining American national security interests."

https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/11/john-redwood-if-labour-really-wanted-to-deliver-growth-they-should-take-lessons-from-biden/

I have said the same about Biden's aggressive economic policies - which also included getting biddable countries to increase Corporation Tax. Oddly, PB's Biden defenders (of which there are many) take the rather dickless stance that that's OK for the gaffer but we shouldn't do the same in case we offend someone. Or something.

The US has far more leeway on the public finances than we do.

They still have to pay their debts eventually. The US economy is strong but remeber they've got a massive current account deficit and national debt keeps rising.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Given the comment above, I’ve gone and watched today’s PMQs.

I think Kemi’s problem is going to be that, even on her points where she might have a case, she doesn’t come across very well. In a debate there’s no good scoring a point on the facts, if you do so in a way that doesn’t impress the audience.

When it comes to campaigning out in the country, that’s going to be a serious handicap.

I’ve got a feeling the Tories will bin her. It’s a shame. I like her. I wished her well. But the early signs aren’t great. She’s got maybe 18-20 months to shape up

One advantage the Tories have is that everyone knows they are brutal with leaders. It won’t be a shock or particularly damaging if they defenestrate Kemi

Feel much the same. She has a problem coming up in May next year when the Tories will be defending council seats won when Boris was still on a high and before the LibDem revival. May cause a wobble or two.

But who would replace her? Short of by-elections bringing in contenders the only plausible candidate would be Cleverly. NOT Jenrick!

I think it's far too early to write her off. She's not IDS. There is definitely a bit of stardust about her even if its shining dimly just now.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Given the comment above, I’ve gone and watched today’s PMQs.

I think Kemi’s problem is going to be that, even on her points where she might have a case, she doesn’t come across very well. In a debate there’s no good scoring a point on the facts, if you do so in a way that doesn’t impress the audience.

When it comes to campaigning out in the country, that’s going to be a serious handicap.

I’ve got a feeling the Tories will bin her. It’s a shame. I like her. I wished her well. But the early signs aren’t great. She’s got maybe 18-20 months to shape up

One advantage the Tories have is that everyone knows they are brutal with leaders. It won’t be a shock or particularly damaging if they defenestrate Kemi

She will survive. Kemi won the Tory MPs and members votes and already the Conservatives lead some polls which would have been unbelievable in July

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Do you know the symbolism off 88? Google it if not.

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

PJH said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?

Who said it was easy?

I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.

Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.

Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage?
Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background?
You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?

What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?

It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.

SO, for someone where I live that means per month:
Rent 1600
Other bills 400
Food and groceries 800
Kids clothing activities etc 500
Car 250
Personal clothes etc x 2 200
Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?

Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.

Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference

This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.

The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Build, build, build.

Then build some more!

It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.

Scene : Malmesbury's Britain

Husband: Disaster!
Wife: What?
Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box!
Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth?
Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?

Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.

I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.

Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.

Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.

Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.

But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.

In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.

There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.

That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.

The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.

That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.

But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.

There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.

If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

It's more likely you'd have a situation like the last French legislative elections and the centre and left parties tactically voted for one another to stop the populist right party getting in. You could end up with a situation where Farage won the popular vote, but Labour won the most seats and formed a coalition with the Lib Dems and Greens.

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Burgessian said:

Interesting article by John Redwood on how to grow the economy. Tip to Rachel: learn from Joe Biden. Not sure what to make of the Vulcan. Obviously bright but possessed of a tin ear.

"It is a pity Rachel Reeve did not look across the Atlantic, to a Democratic president much to her liking, and copy some of his better ideas. During his four years in office Joe Biden allowed more oil and gas drilling – on top of the 50 per cent increase under Donald Trump – permitting more cheaper energy to be made available to American business.

"He had a strong onshoring policy for more industrial investment, again building on Trump’s successful push for more home-based industry. Like his predecessor, Biden used tariffs and bans against China where he thought they were competing unfairly or undermining American national security interests."

https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/11/john-redwood-if-labour-really-wanted-to-deliver-growth-they-should-take-lessons-from-biden/

I have said the same about Biden's aggressive economic policies - which also included getting biddable countries to increase Corporation Tax. Oddly, PB's Biden defenders (of which there are many) take the rather dickless stance that that's OK for the gaffer but we shouldn't do the same in case we offend someone. Or something.

The US has far more leeway on the public finances than we do.

That's not true. The US and UK budget deficits have been pretty similar over the last few years, at around 4-7% of GDP depending on the year, and ten year government debt yields are also similar, at around 4%. The UK has a slightly better medium term outlook on the public finances while the US's growth prospects are currently much better.

US credit default swaps are higher than the UK at 29 bps compared to 21 bps.

https://uk.investing.com/rates-bonds/world-cds

We are both advanced countries that borrow largely in our own currencies, and we seem to have pretty similar "leeway" in this area.

Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness

eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different

The centre-left is still doing better in the UK than most other European countries. Collectively they're on about 50% in the polling average, ie. Lab+LD+Greens+SNP+PC. (Although not all LD voters would preference Labour over the Tories).

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Just get Hope not Hate on the case for the next few years. Bound to nip the Reform surge in the bud.

RandallFlagg said:

Leon said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Yeah. Cancelling democracy cause you don’t like the outcome is always a good call

🙄

Interesting chat between the Narrator and Tyler Durden.

THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER.

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Indefinite extension of parliament?

We could call that an Enabling Act, eh, HH?

You never did answer my question - a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Is your day-job sitting in the Romanian constitutional court ?

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

PJH said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?

Who said it was easy?

I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.

Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.

Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage?
Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background?
You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?

What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?

It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.

SO, for someone where I live that means per month:
Rent 1600
Other bills 400
Food and groceries 800
Kids clothing activities etc 500
Car 250
Personal clothes etc x 2 200
Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?

Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.

Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference

This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.

The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Build, build, build.

Then build some more!

It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.

Scene : Malmesbury's Britain

Husband: Disaster!
Wife: What?
Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box!
Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth?
Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?

Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.

I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.

Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.

Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.

Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.

But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.

In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.

There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.

That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.

The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.

That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.

But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.

There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.

If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.

I'm not convinced that the cost of building houses has had much of an impact at all, with the price largely set by this apparently insatiable demand.

I also think the market is extremely sticky and inefficient, with total house sales down significantly over the last 20 years, even as the number of houses has increased faster the population. That means new builds are a much larger proportion of those being sold than previously.

The combination of LBTT, perverse council tax bandings, WFH, CGT and IHT exemptions makes moving house deeply unattractive for most, particularly when downsizing.

The number of houses hasn’t increased faster than population. The rate of building may have increased, but it is total mismatch, still.

Look at occupancy rates.

Shecorns88 said:

RandallFlagg said:

Leon said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Yeah. Cancelling democracy cause you don’t like the outcome is always a good call

🙄

Interesting chat between the Narrator and Tyler Durden.

When you associate with the likes of Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate you cross a line of decency.

When you cross a line of decency then democracy must do all it can to crush it.

39 to 45 a Government of National Unity crushed it

Which side do you think Farage would have been on in 1939.

With Rothermere, The Daily Mail and Moseley and all the utter closet Fascists.

Do you seriously suggest any exponential of centre let alone left thinking views. Any person if colour, non approved religion, gay, trans et Al would be safe with Robinson running the Streets and Tate social media.

To step aside is to take sides Facism has to be destroyed.

Rothermere and the Daily Mail demanded that Chamberlin go and someone capable prosecute the war. They were 100% behind that to the end of the war.

Mosley had about 3 supporters.

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

PJH said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?

Who said it was easy?

I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.

Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.

Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage?
Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background?
You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?

What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?

It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.

SO, for someone where I live that means per month:
Rent 1600
Other bills 400
Food and groceries 800
Kids clothing activities etc 500
Car 250
Personal clothes etc x 2 200
Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?

Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.

Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference

This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.

The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Build, build, build.

Then build some more!

It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.

Scene : Malmesbury's Britain

Husband: Disaster!
Wife: What?
Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box!
Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth?
Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?

Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.

I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.

Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.

Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.

Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.

But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.

In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.

There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.

That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.

The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.

That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.

But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.

There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.

If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.

I'm not convinced that the cost of building houses has had much of an impact at all, with the price largely set by this apparently insatiable demand.

I also think the market is extremely sticky and inefficient, with total house sales down significantly over the last 20 years, even as the number of houses has increased faster the population. That means new builds are a much larger proportion of those being sold than previously.

The combination of LBTT, perverse council tax bandings, WFH, CGT and IHT exemptions makes moving house deeply unattractive for most, particularly when downsizing.

The number of houses hasn’t increased faster than population. The rate of building may have increased, but it is total mismatch, still.

Look at occupancy rates.

It certainly has in Scotland - about 3x faster than the population in the last 10 years. We can see that from council tax stats.

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

Young Londoner jailed in Dubai for a year for "holiday romance" with 17 year old girl.

Must be more to this than meets the eye.

The girl's mother made a complaint and that was that for the young lad.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/londoner-18-sentenced-to-a-year-in-dubai-prison-over-holiday-romance-with-17-year-old-girl/ar-AA1vEWVR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2b1db61995894b42d7510ef35d01fa81&ei=12

Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!

Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.

Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.

The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.

Besides, I thought we were supposed to learn from and embrace other cultures. Not tell them what to do.

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

PJH said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?

Who said it was easy?

I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.

Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.

Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage?
Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background?
You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?

What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?

It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.

SO, for someone where I live that means per month:
Rent 1600
Other bills 400
Food and groceries 800
Kids clothing activities etc 500
Car 250
Personal clothes etc x 2 200
Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?

Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.

Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference

This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.

The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Build, build, build.

Then build some more!

It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.

Scene : Malmesbury's Britain

Husband: Disaster!
Wife: What?
Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box!
Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth?
Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?

Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.

I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.

Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.

Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.

Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.

But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.

In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.

There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.

That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.

The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.

That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.

But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.

There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.

If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.

I'm not convinced that the cost of building houses has had much of an impact at all, with the price largely set by this apparently insatiable demand.

I also think the market is extremely sticky and inefficient, with total house sales down significantly over the last 20 years, even as the number of houses has increased faster the population. That means new builds are a much larger proportion of those being sold than previously.

The combination of LBTT, perverse council tax bandings, WFH, CGT and IHT exemptions makes moving house deeply unattractive for most, particularly when downsizing.

Stamp duty is another factor, making the market ‘sticky’ and reducing the number of steps on the ladder for the average person.

Most young couples getting married now will totally max out whatever they can get from the bank, and hope to only move once more if at all.

This also affects labour mobility, especially where both partners are working which is now almost always the case.

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

Young Londoner jailed in Dubai for a year for "holiday romance" with 17 year old girl.

Must be more to this than meets the eye.

The girl's mother made a complaint and that was that for the young lad.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/londoner-18-sentenced-to-a-year-in-dubai-prison-over-holiday-romance-with-17-year-old-girl/ar-AA1vEWVR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2b1db61995894b42d7510ef35d01fa81&ei=12

Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!

Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.

Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.

The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.

The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.

I think you need to read between the lines, they probably didnt just write some poetry to each other.

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Given the comment above, I’ve gone and watched today’s PMQs.

I think Kemi’s problem is going to be that, even on her points where she might have a case, she doesn’t come across very well. In a debate there’s no good scoring a point on the facts, if you do so in a way that doesn’t impress the audience.

When it comes to campaigning out in the country, that’s going to be a serious handicap.

I’ve got a feeling the Tories will bin her. It’s a shame. I like her. I wished her well. But the early signs aren’t great. She’s got maybe 18-20 months to shape up

One advantage the Tories have is that everyone knows they are brutal with leaders. It won’t be a shock or particularly damaging if they defenestrate Kemi

She will survive. Kemi won the Tory MPs and members votes and already the Conservatives lead some polls which would have been unbelievable in July

It is too soon to dismiss her and as those who excuse Starmer's woeful government insist there is 4 plus years to go and lots of water to flow under the bridge

Indeed the only important voices anti Kemi would be conservatives and as you say they do actually lead in some polls

To: @MattW, @Alphabet_Soup, @Phil, @Leon
Re: Puberty blockers bans and matters arising

* The number of detransitioners
Unknown. If I were to guess I'd say 10-100 in UK, presumably much bigger in US. Terminology makes things difficult: are we talking about reverting pronouns, regretting surgery, what? Terms such as "desister" and "detransitioner" have grown up to describe this, but as ever are imprecise: I'd go for "date started hormones", "date stopped hormones", "date switched pronouns", "date switched pronouns back", etc.

* The upcoming study
The study protocol is due to be published around now (it's late). When it is published it will contain details like study type, study design, number of arms, sample size calc and power, duration, etc. I assume it will be public domain: if not I'll try to get a copy to you if I can get one (I'm not working on it!)

* The US/UK gap
The situation in the US is much more different in the UK. In the UK the numbers are much smaller (genital surgery for under-16s isn't UK legal) and the combination of that and UK bureaucracy makes the number of UK trans people (however defined) considerably smaller than the US. IIUC the US has got thousands (tens-of-thousands?) of operated-upon children regarding primary or secondary sex characteristics, the UK number would be two-or-more magnitudes smaller. I promised @MaxPB I would try to do a CONSORT-ish diagram for the Tavistock before EOY: it'll be tight but I'll try

* Syntactic review
I started the promised syntactic review of the Final Cass Report last weekend, and will have to scale it back: I didn't realise how big the report is (around 120,000 words). I have done a word cloud and a sentiment analysis of one of the sections and will do the Shannon information entropy this weekend: If I work out how to get Visio I'll do a flow chart as well. It might not be the kind of thing the mods will want for PB and I might be able to get it published in the stats mags (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_(magazine)), but I'll run it past the mods first

* Mayhem
Incidentally, regarding Leon's remark on “never operate on a healthy organ”, you may be interested to know that one of the meanings of "mayhem" is "the removal of a healthy organ"

Shecorns88 said:

RandallFlagg said:

Leon said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Yeah. Cancelling democracy cause you don’t like the outcome is always a good call

🙄

Interesting chat between the Narrator and Tyler Durden.

When you associate with the likes of Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate you cross a line of decency.

When you cross a line of decency then democracy must do all it can to crush it.

39 to 45 a Government of National Unity crushed it

Which side do you think Farage would have been on in 1939.

With Rothermere, The Daily Mail and Moseley and all the utter closet Fascists.

Do you seriously suggest any exponential of centre let alone left thinking views. Any person if colour, non approved religion, gay, trans et Al would be safe with Robinson running the Streets and Tate social media.

To step aside is to take sides Facism has to be destroyed.

It doesn't help that the Beeb keeps enabling Farage as he is on Question Time every ruddy week talking about annexing the Sudetenland.

Taz said:

Shecorns88 said:

RandallFlagg said:

Leon said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

Yeah. Cancelling democracy cause you don’t like the outcome is always a good call

🙄

Interesting chat between the Narrator and Tyler Durden.

When you associate with the likes of Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate you cross a line of decency.

When you cross a line of decency then democracy must do all it can to crush it.

39 to 45 a Government of National Unity crushed it

Which side do you think Farage would have been on in 1939.

With Rothermere, The Daily Mail and Moseley and all the utter closet Fascists.

Do you seriously suggest any exponential of centre let alone left thinking views. Any person if colour, non approved religion, gay, trans et Al would be safe with Robinson running the Streets and Tate social media.

To step aside is to take sides Facism has to be destroyed.

It doesn't help that the Beeb keeps enabling Farage as he is on Question Time every ruddy week talking about annexing the Sudetenland.

I think he prefers the name "Continental Kent" for the region.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree

The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument

The possibility of a Farage surge is why I have mixed thoughts about Starmer.

While I have little doubt that Angela Rayner would - being red-haired, passionate, leftish, etc - do much better in rallying the troops and leading the charge in an election against, say the Tories.

But what if there is a real prospect of Farage in power? Then, I suspect, all those horrified at the prospect (which is very different from the return of the Tories) would very likely rally more easily to a more moderate Labour option even if the person concerned is a bit "meh". Starmer fits the bill. A known quantity: dull but safe.

The Labour position is stronger than the 34% indicates - that was due to the inevitability of the Tory defeat, leading to a low turnout and a drift to the Greens, various Indys, etc. They likely would revert to type faced with the Faragists.

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

viewcode said:

Cookie said:

I have just been asked, in all sincerity, and in relation to a conversation which arose organically, by a younger colleague, presumably in the expectation that, as a man of the world of a certain age that I would know this, what the difference is between a stoat and a weasel.

Other men of a certain age – i.e. everybody here – will, I’m sure, recognise the relish with which I savoured the moment before slamming the ball gleefully into the open goal in front of me.

It was all I could do not to pull my jumper over my head and wheel around the office in celebration. Days in the office rarely get much better than this. Friends, I feel so ALIVE.

My younger colleagues celebrated by rolling their eyes in a way I have chosen to interpret as “indulgently.”

(frantically googles)

A weasel is weaselly recognisable and a stoat is stoatally different.

If you actually came right back with that you should get a Nobel

It's a really old joke. One my dad told me when I was a kid, and I, in turn, tell my son. To a suitable roll of the eyes.

I bet a lot of kids nowadays don't even know what a stoat or a weasel are. My son only knew about a 'weasel' from the nursery rhyme.

I’ve never heard it before. I thought @Cookie was just exulting in his chance to explain different mustelids to underlings. And I gave him a like just for THAT

But if he had this old joke ready to roll and shot it straight back he deserves ten likes. Ten thousand!

Wanders back onto PB.

Sees the current debate is shall we just cancel elections or not if there’s a risk that Labour will lose.

Wanders back out of PB again.

bigjohnowls said:

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist

Leon said:

bigjohnowls said:

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist

You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike

LostPassword said:

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

Young Londoner jailed in Dubai for a year for "holiday romance" with 17 year old girl.

Must be more to this than meets the eye.

The girl's mother made a complaint and that was that for the young lad.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/londoner-18-sentenced-to-a-year-in-dubai-prison-over-holiday-romance-with-17-year-old-girl/ar-AA1vEWVR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2b1db61995894b42d7510ef35d01fa81&ei=12

Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!

Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.

Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.

The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.

The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.

Over on mumsnet they're upset about it because the 17 year old involved was also a tourist from Britain, and her mother didn't contact the authorities in Dubai until they were back in London (so that her daughter wouldn't get in trouble for having sex out of marriage).

I think that puts a slightly different spin on things.

That's an incredibly shitty thing to do. Of course it probably means the girl cannot go back to Dubai as she may be in trouble if she does.

bigjohnowls said:

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

I would think mostly disappointment from the Left. The right would disapprove anyway.

Shecorns88 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree

The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument

I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.

Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin

This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.

Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon

He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.

He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.

We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.

We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not

However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.

Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....

The threat is very very real

Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.

It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.

I'll say nothing else about this
..

I just hope I'm wrong

That’s what you have in common with our Leon. Everyone hopes (and expects) that you are wrong.

Shecorns88 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree

The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument

I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.

Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin

This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.

Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon

He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.

He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.

We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.

We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not

However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.

Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....

The threat is very very real

Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.

It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.

I'll say nothing else about this
..

I just hope I'm wrong

You cannot pick and chose under a democracy

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

PJH said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?

Who said it was easy?

I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.

Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.

Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage?
Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background?
You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?

What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?

It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.

SO, for someone where I live that means per month:
Rent 1600
Other bills 400
Food and groceries 800
Kids clothing activities etc 500
Car 250
Personal clothes etc x 2 200
Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?

Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.

Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference

This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.

The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Build, build, build.

Then build some more!

It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.

Scene : Malmesbury's Britain

Husband: Disaster!
Wife: What?
Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box!
Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth?
Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?

Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.

I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.

Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.

Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.

Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.

But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.

In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.

There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.

That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.

The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.

That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.

But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.

There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.

If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.

I'm not convinced that the cost of building houses has had much of an impact at all, with the price largely set by this apparently insatiable demand.

I also think the market is extremely sticky and inefficient, with total house sales down significantly over the last 20 years, even as the number of houses has increased faster the population. That means new builds are a much larger proportion of those being sold than previously.

The combination of LBTT, perverse council tax bandings, WFH, CGT and IHT exemptions makes moving house deeply unattractive for most, particularly when downsizing.

Not IHT - there is provision for downsizing as one gets old. Or at least IHT shouldn't be a worry.

People (as so often) may be getting unnecessarily worked up about it, like the elderly relative who was getting all panicky about IHT (about ten years too late, IMV, but I didn't point that out): I had to sit him down, point out the values of his house and his savings, and explain in words of fewer than four letters that IHT was not payable on his e3state .;..

Shecorns88 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Shecorns88 said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Leon said:

On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.

I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.

I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice

What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.

If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years

Take them on head on.

We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.

The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.

We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree

The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument

I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.

Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin

This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.

Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon

He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.

He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.

We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.

We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not

However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.

Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....

The threat is very very real

Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.

It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.

I'll say nothing else about this
..

I just hope I'm wrong

We need a benevolent dictatorship.

SKS needs to follow the playbook of His Excellency Robert Gabriel Mugabe when it comes to winning elections he may look like losing.

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

viewcode said:

Cookie said:

I have just been asked, in all sincerity, and in relation to a conversation which arose organically, by a younger colleague, presumably in the expectation that, as a man of the world of a certain age that I would know this, what the difference is between a stoat and a weasel.

Other men of a certain age – i.e. everybody here – will, I’m sure, recognise the relish with which I savoured the moment before slamming the ball gleefully into the open goal in front of me.

It was all I could do not to pull my jumper over my head and wheel around the office in celebration. Days in the office rarely get much better than this. Friends, I feel so ALIVE.

My younger colleagues celebrated by rolling their eyes in a way I have chosen to interpret as “indulgently.”

(frantically googles)

A weasel is weaselly recognisable and a stoat is stoatally different.

If you actually came right back with that you should get a Nobel

I did! I really did! I took a second or two to savour the moment, and then, as you say, came right back. It was a glorious moment. Possibly the highlight of my professional career as an office functionary.

Drink well, tonight, my friend

Drink well and know that, from this day forth, your name lives long

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

bigjohnowls said:

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist

You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike

Why do you think I go to these places?

Because you are running away from something that it would be off topic for us to even begin to consider.

LostPassword said:

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

Young Londoner jailed in Dubai for a year for "holiday romance" with 17 year old girl.

Must be more to this than meets the eye.

The girl's mother made a complaint and that was that for the young lad.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/londoner-18-sentenced-to-a-year-in-dubai-prison-over-holiday-romance-with-17-year-old-girl/ar-AA1vEWVR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2b1db61995894b42d7510ef35d01fa81&ei=12

Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!

Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.

Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.

The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.

The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.

Over on mumsnet they're upset about it because the 17 year old involved was also a tourist from Britain, and her mother didn't contact the authorities in Dubai until they were back in London (so that her daughter wouldn't get in trouble for having sex out of marriage).

I think that puts a slightly different spin on things.

I think mumsnet has raised the right issue. The other issue is whether the 17 y.o. wanted to raise the issue. And finally, if you have a mum like that, why on earth are you telling her stuff about a young man you liked well enough at the time. Do they teach 17 yo girls nothing about how to shut up?

Leon said:

Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness

eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different

There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.

Fishing said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

PJH said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?

Who said it was easy?

I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.

Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.

Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage?
Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background?
You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?

What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?

It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.

SO, for someone where I live that means per month:
Rent 1600
Other bills 400
Food and groceries 800
Kids clothing activities etc 500
Car 250
Personal clothes etc x 2 200
Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?

Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.

Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference

This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.

The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Build, build, build.

Then build some more!

It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.

Scene : Malmesbury's Britain

Husband: Disaster!
Wife: What?
Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box!
Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth?
Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?

Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.

I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.

Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.

Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.

Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.

But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.

In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.

There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.

That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.

The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.

That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.

But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.

There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.

If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.

I'm not convinced that the cost of building houses has had much of an impact at all, with the price largely set by this apparently insatiable demand.

I also think the market is extremely sticky and inefficient, with total house sales down significantly over the last 20 years, even as the number of houses has increased faster the population. That means new builds are a much larger proportion of those being sold than previously.

The combination of LBTT, perverse council tax bandings, WFH, CGT and IHT exemptions makes moving house deeply unattractive for most, particularly when downsizing.

The number of houses hasn’t increased faster than population. The rate of building may have increased, but it is total mismatch, still.

Look at occupancy rates.

Yes and there's two other crucial factors. Family size is shrinking, so fewer and fewer people occupy each house.

And the houses built are much smaller than the average (750 sq ft vs 1500 sq ft iirc, compared to 1600 sq ft for new houses in Germany) so there is much less space even for the smaller families we now have.

So the mismatch is much bigger even than the usual obsessive focus on numbers of houses vs population growth indicates.

Under my UnDictatorship, all rooms built will have a minimum dimension of 4x4x4 meters.

Including the throne room.

Every man a king!

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Shecorns88 said:

Leon said:

bigjohnowls said:

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist

Lots of polls lately inordinate number

Just saying

Can't cast aspurtions but have we ever seen so many polls

There are fewer polls since the election and maybe you need to learn how to spell

The one word per post spelling error is, of course, deliberate as as they would write deliberute.

Edgy stuff.

Is inordinate number a spelling error or a spacing error?

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

bigjohnowls said:

In another blow to SKS Fans

Labour approval hits all-time low (-41)

✅ Approve 18% (-4)
❌ Disapprove 59% (+1)

Via
@YouGov
, 9 Dec (+/- vs 2 Dec)

This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist

You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike

Why do you think I go to these places?

Well the women.

But as to supporting governments. I rather approve of this Labour government whilst the Tory party is sorting itself out. It really is an improvement on what the Tories managed to do. Boris/Brexit/Whatever - it was a car crash, and you can't have a government that's all noise and no action.