Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
As someone generally sympathetic to LDs (and a member for a couple of years two decades ago) I certainly think an advance is unlikely. Why vote LD? It's not an easy question to answer. However, they may keep many of their seats if Reform still look a threat - the kind of kick the Tories out tactical support could still hold, particularly where they are incumbent. If Reform fade and the Tories look like serious players then there could be potentially a serious squeeze of LD southern seats. But I'm not convinced that Badenoch can appeal enough on those kinds of seats (or in general).
2024-2029 may go down as a missed opportunity for LDs, I fear.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
To be fair, I think the impact of recent migration on overall prices is overblown somewhat because they tend to use housing stock very efficiently (too much so, tbh - basically slums.).
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
Trading local families for remote retirees with no senses of local value?
Not sure people from England are coming up to retire in Lanarkshire or Greenock. Moray/Highlands maybe...
Using land registry, BoE and CPIH data (Since we're measuring housing costs, CPIH is the most appropriate measure) peak housing unaffordability (Since 2000) was in August 2007 just before the GFC. It took 2.61 weeks wages to pay the mortgage (Assumption is 25 yr term, rate is BoE base rate, house price is average, wage is average wage - all gov't data), in Nov 25 it was 1.93*
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Agreed. And their 'targets' get very tricky very quickly. 50 seats and 11% or so. Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
Two Conservative-inclined talking down the Liberal Democrats, remarkable (as David Coleman would say).
Let's be honest - no one can be confident about 2029 at this stage. I do agree, pace the spider trying to climb out the bowl, it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats and you'd better believe everyone in the party knows that too.
The assumption the Conservatives are going to clawback 20 LD seats is one which needs to be challenged. What we've seen in local council by-elections in areas of LD strength since 2024 hasn't been so much a further strengthening of LD support as a further weakening of Conservative support at the expense of Reform?
The assumption the Conservatives will miraculously return to the "heights" of 2024 can be challenged by polls showing them at 16-18%. How, if the party is losing a third of its 2024 vote, can it regain large numbers of LD seats without losing other seats to Reform? Yes, the Conservatives could slip further back in East Ham but that's not going to matter as they are fourth here anyway.
You can also apply the same challenge to the assumption the LDs will poll 11-12% -why not 16-18%? The truth is three years is a political eternity.
We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days.
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will When the Supreme Court recently allowed immigration agents in the Los Angeles area to take race into consideration during sweeps, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that citizens shouldn’t be concerned. “If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote, “they promptly let the individual go.” But that is far from the reality many citizens have experienced. Americans have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot by immigration agents. They’ve had their necks kneeled on. They’ve been held outside in the rain while in their underwear. At least three citizens were pregnant when agents detained them. One of those women had already had the door of her home blown off while Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watched...
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
To be fair, I think the impact of recent migration on overall prices is overblown somewhat because they tend to use housing stock very efficiently (too much so, tbh - basically slums.).
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
Trading local families for remote retirees with no senses of local value?
Not sure people from England are coming up to retire in Lanarkshire or Greenock. Moray/Highlands maybe...
Using land registry, BoE and CPIH data (Since we're measuring housing costs, CPIH is the most appropriate measure) peak housing unaffordability (Since 2000) was in August 2007 just before the GFC. It took 2.61 weeks wages to pay the mortgage (Assumption is 25 yr term, rate is BoE base rate, house price is average, wage is average wage - all gov't data), in Nov 25 it was 1.93*
Apologies for the tiny graph, the long low line is basically the whole of the 2010s where mortgage payments were just over a week's wages in real terms...
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Agreed. And their 'targets' get very tricky very quickly. 50 seats and 11% or so. Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
Two Conservative-inclined talking down the Liberal Democrats, remarkable (as David Coleman would say).
Let's be honest - no one can be confident about 2029 at this stage. I do agree, pace the spider trying to climb out the bowl, it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats and you'd better believe everyone in the party knows that too.
The assumption the Conservatives are going to clawback 20 LD seats is one which needs to be challenged. What we've seen in local council by-elections in areas of LD strength since 2024 hasn't been so much a further strengthening of LD support as a further weakening of Conservative support at the expense of Reform?
The assumption the Conservatives will miraculously return to the "heights" of 2024 can be challenged by polls showing them at 16-18%. How, if the party is losing a third of its 2024 vote, can it regain large numbers of LD seats without losing other seats to Reform? Yes, the Conservatives could slip further back in East Ham but that's not going to matter as they are fourth here anyway.
You can also apply the same challenge to the assumption the LDs will poll 11-12% -why not 16-18%? The truth is three years is a political eternity.
The LD national share doesn't mean much, and can be misleading.
It's made up of around 50% share in 70-80 seats and around 8% share in the rest. The 8% share is because of invisibility of LDs locally and at national level. But in existing LD seats and target seats LDs are VERY visible. I agree it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
As someone generally sympathetic to LDs (and a member for a couple of years two decades ago) I certainly think an advance is unlikely. Why vote LD? It's not an easy question to answer. However, they may keep many of their seats if Reform still look a threat - the kind of kick the Tories out tactical support could still hold, particularly where they are incumbent. If Reform fade and the Tories look like serious players then there could be potentially a serious squeeze of LD southern seats. But I'm not convinced that Badenoch can appeal enough on those kinds of seats (or in general).
2024-2029 may go down as a missed opportunity for LDs, I fear.
As someone who is open to alternatives to Labour (after 55 years of membership) and in an area with a LibDem MP (Olly Glover) and councillor, I'm willing to consider them and don't hate them, but I don't have a clear impression of their positioning - exactly the problem I have with Labour. I'm currently leaning Green, not because I find their leader convincing but because they seem to have some genuine positions. I don't hear much from Olly and what I hear is vague and localised to an extent appropriate for a councillor rather than an MP. Does he favour more defense spending or more welfare spending or...? No Idea.
I'm not necessarily a typical switcher! But I do think that the LibDems need to have a clear direction nationally to get tactical votes.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Agreed. And their 'targets' get very tricky very quickly. 50 seats and 11% or so. Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
Two Conservative-inclined talking down the Liberal Democrats, remarkable (as David Coleman would say).
Let's be honest - no one can be confident about 2029 at this stage. I do agree, pace the spider trying to climb out the bowl, it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats and you'd better believe everyone in the party knows that too.
The assumption the Conservatives are going to clawback 20 LD seats is one which needs to be challenged. What we've seen in local council by-elections in areas of LD strength since 2024 hasn't been so much a further strengthening of LD support as a further weakening of Conservative support at the expense of Reform?
The assumption the Conservatives will miraculously return to the "heights" of 2024 can be challenged by polls showing them at 16-18%. How, if the party is losing a third of its 2024 vote, can it regain large numbers of LD seats without losing other seats to Reform? Yes, the Conservatives could slip further back in East Ham but that's not going to matter as they are fourth here anyway.
You can also apply the same challenge to the assumption the LDs will poll 11-12% -why not 16-18%? The truth is three years is a political eternity.
LD inclined pushing back on LD prospects being talked down. Also remarkable. Im predicting what i think will happen based on the current situation and what I expect to happen up to the next GE. If i dont change my opinion (if the landscape changes) and I am wrong you can berate me all you like.
My proposal is not without support - the latest two MRPs trend either side of it.
During a "foreign policy" panel in Munich, Gretchen Whitmer said AOC knew more about foreign policy than her. She struggled to answer about Ukraine and even looked to a Trump ambassador for an answer.
I am so looking forward to Bobbie Jenrick as Shadow Chancellor... lol
Penny for the thoughts of Tice and Yusuf this morning.
They backed Farage when it was less cool than it is now.
Almost everyone will eventually face the choice between being a big fish in a small pond, or a small fish in a big pond. Not many people get to be the big fish in a big pond.
If Tice and Yusuf didn't realise that their best case scenario was to be small fish in a big pond then more fool them.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Given the burden on employers already teh NMW and largesse on benefits is wrecking the country as it is. It should be mae impossible to have benefits any higher than 90% of minimum wage and the rent allowances should be set at a minimum rate. A moron could work out why we have ecer increasing benefit junkies and higher unemployment.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
It's a policy predicated on high house prices. If house prices aren't ridiculously high then there will always be affordable houses available and you don't need to build them specifically.
Loads of housing policy can be seen as simply accepting that house prices are going to remain generally unaffordable due to a shortage of housing, and the policy exists merely so the politician can be seen to be doing something to help < insert favoured interest group here >.
There are only two ways to reduce house prices - build more houses, or reduce the amount of money available for the buying of houses (by reducing income multiples for mortgages, taxing investment income out of housing, or reducing the population).
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Yep, people will buy whatever the bank can lend them. If we make poxy small houses, people will buy them and banks will lend to those because that is the available stock; if nice and larger houses were available, the national standard of housing rises and people live in superior housing because that's the available stock for banks to lend against.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
To be fair, I think the impact of recent migration on overall prices is overblown somewhat because they tend to use housing stock very efficiently (too much so, tbh - basically slums.).
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
I am looking at moving to Alloway area and prices are ever increasing and you have to pay seriously over valuation to have any chance.
During a "foreign policy" panel in Munich, Gretchen Whitmer said AOC knew more about foreign policy than her. She struggled to answer about Ukraine and even looked to a Trump ambassador for an answer.
You'll be shocked to hear who Trump has employed to negotiate with Russia and Iran, then.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Agreed. And their 'targets' get very tricky very quickly. 50 seats and 11% or so. Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
Two Conservative-inclined talking down the Liberal Democrats, remarkable (as David Coleman would say).
Let's be honest - no one can be confident about 2029 at this stage. I do agree, pace the spider trying to climb out the bowl, it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats and you'd better believe everyone in the party knows that too.
The assumption the Conservatives are going to clawback 20 LD seats is one which needs to be challenged. What we've seen in local council by-elections in areas of LD strength since 2024 hasn't been so much a further strengthening of LD support as a further weakening of Conservative support at the expense of Reform?
The assumption the Conservatives will miraculously return to the "heights" of 2024 can be challenged by polls showing them at 16-18%. How, if the party is losing a third of its 2024 vote, can it regain large numbers of LD seats without losing other seats to Reform? Yes, the Conservatives could slip further back in East Ham but that's not going to matter as they are fourth here anyway.
You can also apply the same challenge to the assumption the LDs will poll 11-12% -why not 16-18%? The truth is three years is a political eternity.
LD inclined pushing back on LD prospects being talked down. Also remarkable. Im predicting what i think will happen based on the current situation and what I expect to happen up to the next GE. If i dont change my opinion (if the landscape changes) and I am wrong you can berate me all you like.
My proposal is not without support - the latest two MRPs trend either side of it.
We have a by-election locally (on March 5th) and for the first time for ages the LibDems have a candidate. Not sure how well, he'll do, mind, but things are a bit odd. We've had the Conservatives, on Facebook, praising the local Green County Councillor. Yes the Conservatives have a candidate; the Green's don't but AFAIK they're backing the Independent.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Yep, people will buy whatever the bank can lend them. If we make poxy small houses, people will buy them and banks will lend to those because that is the available stock; if nice and larger houses were available, the national standard of housing rises and people live in superior housing because that's the available stock for banks to lend against.
United Kingdom The United Kingdom once had the most expansive houses by size in Europe with a former average size of 1,590 square feet. Nowadays, this area size has diminished to 818 square feet.
Just shocking really. Probably one of the contributors to the rising mental ill health in this country.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Agreed. And their 'targets' get very tricky very quickly. 50 seats and 11% or so. Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
Two Conservative-inclined talking down the Liberal Democrats, remarkable (as David Coleman would say).
Let's be honest - no one can be confident about 2029 at this stage. I do agree, pace the spider trying to climb out the bowl, it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats and you'd better believe everyone in the party knows that too.
The assumption the Conservatives are going to clawback 20 LD seats is one which needs to be challenged. What we've seen in local council by-elections in areas of LD strength since 2024 hasn't been so much a further strengthening of LD support as a further weakening of Conservative support at the expense of Reform?
The assumption the Conservatives will miraculously return to the "heights" of 2024 can be challenged by polls showing them at 16-18%. How, if the party is losing a third of its 2024 vote, can it regain large numbers of LD seats without losing other seats to Reform? Yes, the Conservatives could slip further back in East Ham but that's not going to matter as they are fourth here anyway.
You can also apply the same challenge to the assumption the LDs will poll 11-12% -why not 16-18%? The truth is three years is a political eternity.
LD inclined pushing back on LD prospects being talked down. Also remarkable. Im predicting what i think will happen based on the current situation and what I expect to happen up to the next GE. If i dont change my opinion (if the landscape changes) and I am wrong you can berate me all you like.
My proposal is not without support - the latest two MRPs trend either side of it.
I'm looking forward to Betfair opening a market on number of seats at next General Election. Then we can walk the talk.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
No, there are not plenty of houses, we have a chronic shortage of houses.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
I would really urge you to go and read the 2022 NAO report on Ajax, it is absolutely eye-opening
e.g
'The SRO was initially allocated to the programme for 10% of his time, which increased to 30% in 2018. Previous SRO's were also SRO for the Boxer and Challenger programmes at the same time as Ajax. The SRO appointed in October 2021 was the first to be full-time on the programme'
Ajax did not have a full-time SRO for the first 11 years of its life cycle.
Residential housing apparently takes up just over 1% of the land area of the country (Incl gardens it is 6.2% or so) so it's not that that's the limiting factor.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
No, there are not plenty of houses, we have a chronic shortage of houses.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
Can only say it doesn't look like that round here.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Yep, people will buy whatever the bank can lend them. If we make poxy small houses, people will buy them and banks will lend to those because that is the available stock; if nice and larger houses were available, the national standard of housing rises and people live in superior housing because that's the available stock for banks to lend against.
United Kingdom The United Kingdom once had the most expansive houses by size in Europe with a former average size of 1,590 square feet. Nowadays, this area size has diminished to 818 square feet.
Just shocking really. Probably one of the contributors to the rising mental ill health in this country.
The comparison is particularly marked with the Netherlands, a country as densely populated as south-east England, but as your link says:
"The average home size in the Netherlands is 1,261 square feet, placing it at spot nine on the list. The country has an efficient approach to living spaces as Dutch homeowners prioritize functionality and prefer smart layouts that maximize space without compromising comfort. They also like their outdoor areas, such as terraces or small gardens, considering them important extensions of living space."
One of the greatest of all Orators of any generation.
Spellbinding.
Born at the wrong time.
The one not so good memory I have of him though was at Wembley in 1990 when we congregated to welcome Nelson Mandela to London.
As an active member of the Anti Apartheid movement we got to meet him the day after.
His speech on the stage at Wembley was the most remarkable I'd ever heard. He told us to leave our hate at the door as he had done so many years before.
Jessie Jackson was there, not the man in person you'd have expected and he as over familiar with some of our lady Members shall we say.
Notwithstanding his Oratory will define him.
How sad that across the political spectrum in the UK there are precious few if any left. Stage managed theatre and auticue has destroyed a great skill.
Literally every day there is some mad story about something Matt Goodwin, who in terms of 'actually viable candidates for a parliamentary seat' is the by-election candidate furthest from public opinion since, what...Bermondsey 1983?
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
The problem is developers are profit-maximising, not housing-maximising. That's why you have the perverse outcome of new detached houses inside the Edinburgh bypass.
If we all agree that there are wider economic and social gains to getting more people their own place, then there does need to be some sort of market intervention. Particularly on land hoarding.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Yep, people will buy whatever the bank can lend them. If we make poxy small houses, people will buy them and banks will lend to those because that is the available stock; if nice and larger houses were available, the national standard of housing rises and people live in superior housing because that's the available stock for banks to lend against.
United Kingdom The United Kingdom once had the most expansive houses by size in Europe with a former average size of 1,590 square feet. Nowadays, this area size has diminished to 818 square feet.
Just shocking really. Probably one of the contributors to the rising mental ill health in this country.
The comparison is particularly marked with the Netherlands, a country as densely populated as south-east England, but as your link says:
"The average home size in the Netherlands is 1,261 square feet, placing it at spot nine on the list. The country has an efficient approach to living spaces as Dutch homeowners prioritize functionality and prefer smart layouts that maximize space without compromising comfort. They also like their outdoor areas, such as terraces or small gardens, considering them important extensions of living space."
Yeah, my experience (from visiting a few friends, so limited) is that they make nice, spacious but small footprint homes. Often over three or four floors. Often the loft is built as proper useful living space too.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
No, there are not plenty of houses, we have a chronic shortage of houses.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
Can only say it doesn't look like that round here.
It’s a scaling thing.
Looking locally, a development of a thousand homes looks like a lot. But it isn’t compared to the housing defect.
A simple figure of merit - if a housing market doesn’t have 8%+ of empty properties, it’s under stocked.
To get to that, we would need to build millions of homes.
And as they are built and prices come down, demand would go *up* for a while - all the people crammed into HMOs and tiny properties (think couples in one bed flats) will start moving to larger properties.
Braverman says Reform UK would abolish 'equalities department' ... (In fact, there isn’t a government equalities department. There was a Government Equalities Office, but now it is the women and equalities unit in the Cabinet Office.)
The last Conservative government promised in 2020 to create the “world’s most effective border” by 2025 as part of its plan for a new trade system after Britain left the EU.
The government hoped a “single trade window” (STW) would simplify border processes by creating a single digital platform in which importers and exporters could upload all documentation linked to goods before they are transported. However, the STW project was paused in 2024 amid concerns over costs.
Government responses to freedom of information requests submitted by the thinktank TaxWatch, seen by the Financial Times, now suggest no money has been spent on the project since January last year, with the Treasury writing that the programme had been “brought to an early closure”.
A series of delays have hindered post-Brexit border arrangements. The National Audit Office estimated that the government spent at least £4.7bn on post-Brexit border controls in 2024.*
The TaxWatch director, Mike Lewis, told the FT: “For all intents and purposes the single trade window has been cancelled without HMRC or Deloitte and IBM having delivered anything after spending over £110m on it. But neither HMRC nor ministers appear to wish to admit this.”
The government said while the “delivery” of the STW had been paused for the 2025-26 financial year, “policy development” continued. There is still, however, no definitive timeframe for its implementation...
*Brexit dividend, contd. In one year, that is approximately the cost of the entire Ajax programme. Also for essentially no benefit.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
No, there are not plenty of houses, we have a chronic shortage of houses.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
Can only say it doesn't look like that round here.
It’s a scaling thing.
Looking locally, a development of a thousand homes looks like a lot. But it isn’t compared to the housing defect.
A simple figure of merit - if a housing market doesn’t have 8%+ of empty properties, it’s under stocked.
To get to that, we would need to build millions of homes.
And as they are built and prices come down, demand would go *up* for a while - all the people crammed into HMOs and tiny properties (think couples in one bed flats) will start moving to larger properties.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
No, there are not plenty of houses, we have a chronic shortage of houses.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
Can only say it doesn't look like that round here.
It’s a scaling thing.
Looking locally, a development of a thousand homes looks like a lot. But it isn’t compared to the housing defect.
A simple figure of merit - if a housing market doesn’t have 8%+ of empty properties, it’s under stocked.
To get to that, we would need to build millions of homes.
And as they are built and prices come down, demand would go *up* for a while - all the people crammed into HMOs and tiny properties (think couples in one bed flats) will start moving to larger properties.
There's massive pent-up demand for housing in Britain.
Even if you had a capable government which had satisfying that demand as its number one priority, it would be the job of more than one term in office to to correct the demand/supply imbalance in the British housing market.
This is now one reason why it won't be done. Even with five years before the next election a government will know that if it tackles this problem seriously it will incur only costs and no benefits from doing so in its first (and, consequently, only) term in office.
Literally every day there is some mad story about something Matt Goodwin, who in terms of 'actually viable candidates for a parliamentary seat' is the by-election candidate furthest from public opinion since, what...Bermondsey 1983?
(narrator: Bermondsey 1983 was the one with the non-closeted gay male Labour candidate was pitted against the closeted bisexual male Liberal candidate. The latter ran a notably homophobic campaign involving "the straight choice" and won, poisoning the well for gay male candidates for several years. I don't know what Stephen Bush is trying to say, but I wish he'd chosen a better way)
Braverman says Reform UK would abolish 'equalities department' ... (In fact, there isn’t a government equalities department. There was a Government Equalities Office, but now it is the women and equalities unit in the Cabinet Office.)
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
Reform in third would be what they deserve
High on their supply seems appropriate
Harsh on the Lib Dems and the Greens.
I have a visceral ancestal dislike of the former, and suspect that the latter are rising as a kind of left-wing mirror image of Reform, but neither of them has quite such a negative effect as Team Nigel.
(Am I right that, despite now being in a party of 8 MPs, Romford's Andrew Rosindell still hasn't been trusted with a portfolio? It's cruel, but it's also quite funny.)
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
The problem is developers are profit-maximising, not housing-maximising. That's why you have the perverse outcome of new detached houses inside the Edinburgh bypass.
If we all agree that there are wider economic and social gains to getting more people their own place, then there does need to be some sort of market intervention. Particularly on land hoarding.
There’s a huge new estate being built in the next village to us. The locals are convinced the sewerage system won’t cope, and don’t think the village school will cope either. However, Persimmon, Bellway, etc’s profits matter more.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Surely what we need is more publicly owned houses (council houses) available to rent for those who need houses. Thatcher's sales of council houses simply, over the years, transferred many of those houses to private landlords. There are plenty of houses being built locally, all for sale at what seems high prices.
No, there are not plenty of houses, we have a chronic shortage of houses.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
Can only say it doesn't look like that round here.
It’s a scaling thing.
Looking locally, a development of a thousand homes looks like a lot. But it isn’t compared to the housing defect.
A simple figure of merit - if a housing market doesn’t have 8%+ of empty properties, it’s under stocked.
To get to that, we would need to build millions of homes.
And as they are built and prices come down, demand would go *up* for a while - all the people crammed into HMOs and tiny properties (think couples in one bed flats) will start moving to larger properties.
There's massive pent-up demand for housing in Britain.
Even if you had a capable government which had satisfying that demand as its number one priority, it would be the job of more than one term in office to to correct the demand/supply imbalance in the British housing market.
This is now one reason why it won't be done. Even with five years before the next election a government will know that if it tackles this problem seriously it will incur only costs and no benefits from doing so in its first (and, consequently, only) term in office.
The tide, though is turning.
On some local online groups, the veteran NIMBYs are expressing shock at the “aggressive” attitude they are seeing from younger people. Instead of wanting to object to housing, the young are demanding “build build build”
Real Fuck The Greenbelt energy,
I wonder if that is where the Greens will come unstuck, in the end.
So half of the 4 positions in Reforms partially constructed cabinet are Ex Boris cabinet and one cabinet member and one minister from the Truss administration but 14 years of etc etc and never trust a Tory.
Niche market - 'worst dregs from the rejected 2024 option are here to save the nation'
The animals looked from Boris cabinet to Reform and already it was impossible to tell the difference between them.
During a "foreign policy" panel in Munich, Gretchen Whitmer said AOC knew more about foreign policy than her. She struggled to answer about Ukraine and even looked to a Trump ambassador for an answer.
She was the surprise. AOC and Newsom were known quantities to neutrals, but Whitmer was supposed to be coming across as better than both of the alternatives. Might have to adjust her in the book of outsiders.
Apparently AOC prepped for months on foreign policy before that interview.
This gives all the signs of being a pisstake, but I don't think it is. What will be Sir Keir's route to even greater coolness: a tatoo, piercings or a Ducati motorbike?
Mark Mitchener @markofagenius · 15 Feb Starmer is a pretty cool dude isn’t he and the media can’t cope with it.
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
It's like rats in the sewer eating themselves.
If we assess there are 500 rats, 50% of the vote on the right, there may only be 400 rats who can survive if just a marginal shift to the centre right happens.
One side has some big string known beasts, the other have liitte eenny meany mini mice, Philp, Trott, Whetely, Atkins who will be simply gobbled up...
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
Only 850 of over 5000 seats affected and will now be fought.
Most in smaller Councils where only fraction of the seats are up for selection
By far biggest sector if the seats now to be fought are in the 4 big County Councils where all seats up and Tories under most pressure from Reform. Councils where Tories wanted voting stopped not Labour.
You can imagine the Reform Election leaflets in these areas now. Labour will not be barely mentioned. It will be full on Reform blutzkreig on the Tories
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
And if there is enough cheap labour about, investing in productivity is not competitive.
See why Barbegal was pretty unique in the Roman Empire.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
That’s fine and all but if the NMW is too low and you can’t live on it then the business is not sustainable anyway.
This is all very well in theory but it is those on salaries much higher than NMW who can theorise to their hearts content as to the value of employees.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
That’s fine and all but if the NMW is too low and you can’t live on it then the business is not sustainable anyway.
This is all very well in theory but it is those on salaries much higher than NMW who can theorise to their hearts content as to the value of employees.
There is that - but it is a symbiotic relationship between employer and employee.
It’s very well to say “raise the NMW”. But if the response is more automation and increased avoidance of NMW - where’s the response to that.
During a "foreign policy" panel in Munich, Gretchen Whitmer said AOC knew more about foreign policy than her. She struggled to answer about Ukraine and even looked to a Trump ambassador for an answer.
She was the surprise. AOC and Newsom were known quantities to neutrals, but Whitmer was supposed to be coming across as better than both of the alternatives. Might have to adjust her in the book of outsiders.
Apparently AOC prepped for months on foreign policy before that interview.
Apparently Trump is well into his second term, and still doesn't seem to have a clue about foreign policy.
Next you'll be telling me he can deliver a coherent speech.
The last Conservative government promised in 2020 to create the “world’s most effective border” by 2025 as part of its plan for a new trade system after Britain left the EU.
The government hoped a “single trade window” (STW) would simplify border processes by creating a single digital platform in which importers and exporters could upload all documentation linked to goods before they are transported. However, the STW project was paused in 2024 amid concerns over costs.
Government responses to freedom of information requests submitted by the thinktank TaxWatch, seen by the Financial Times, now suggest no money has been spent on the project since January last year, with the Treasury writing that the programme had been “brought to an early closure”.
A series of delays have hindered post-Brexit border arrangements. The National Audit Office estimated that the government spent at least £4.7bn on post-Brexit border controls in 2024.*
The TaxWatch director, Mike Lewis, told the FT: “For all intents and purposes the single trade window has been cancelled without HMRC or Deloitte and IBM having delivered anything after spending over £110m on it. But neither HMRC nor ministers appear to wish to admit this.”
The government said while the “delivery” of the STW had been paused for the 2025-26 financial year, “policy development” continued. There is still, however, no definitive timeframe for its implementation...
*Brexit dividend, contd. In one year, that is approximately the cost of the entire Ajax programme. Also for essentially no benefit.
I am setting up import flows for BigCo client and also for my other business's manufacturing partners, all in the EU.
Import/Export is a massive pain in the arse, with arrays of form filling needed. Even when you get everything right there's no guarantee that some other company whose stock is on the same vehicle got their right. Or that HMRC aren't going to pull your truck into Sevington for an indefinite period (one shipment last month lost 2 days there with customer increasingly angry on the phone to me demanding updates).
Our problem? Lack of a consistent strategy - are we trying to build "the world's most effective border" or reopen trade links? Lack of agreement on what we are trying to build. Lack of resources, lack of staff, lack of facilities.
We're utterly useless as a nation, with this preening chest beating "patriotism" attempting to disguise the embarrassment of reality.
Literally every day there is some mad story about something Matt Goodwin, who in terms of 'actually viable candidates for a parliamentary seat' is the by-election candidate furthest from public opinion since, what...Bermondsey 1983?
(narrator: Bermondsey 1983 was the one with the non-closeted gay male Labour candidate was pitted against the closeted bisexual male Liberal candidate. The latter ran a notably homophobic campaign involving "the straight choice" and won, poisoning the well for gay male candidates for several years. I don't know what Stephen Bush is trying to say, but I wish he'd chosen a better way)
I think that slogan was actually John O'Grady, who was a bitter personal enemy of Tatchell.
The last Conservative government promised in 2020 to create the “world’s most effective border” by 2025 as part of its plan for a new trade system after Britain left the EU.
The government hoped a “single trade window” (STW) would simplify border processes by creating a single digital platform in which importers and exporters could upload all documentation linked to goods before they are transported. However, the STW project was paused in 2024 amid concerns over costs.
Government responses to freedom of information requests submitted by the thinktank TaxWatch, seen by the Financial Times, now suggest no money has been spent on the project since January last year, with the Treasury writing that the programme had been “brought to an early closure”.
A series of delays have hindered post-Brexit border arrangements. The National Audit Office estimated that the government spent at least £4.7bn on post-Brexit border controls in 2024.*
The TaxWatch director, Mike Lewis, told the FT: “For all intents and purposes the single trade window has been cancelled without HMRC or Deloitte and IBM having delivered anything after spending over £110m on it. But neither HMRC nor ministers appear to wish to admit this.”
The government said while the “delivery” of the STW had been paused for the 2025-26 financial year, “policy development” continued. There is still, however, no definitive timeframe for its implementation...
*Brexit dividend, contd. In one year, that is approximately the cost of the entire Ajax programme. Also for essentially no benefit.
That 4.7bn sounds unlikely for a single year. Perhaps from 2016 to 2024?
The benefit is not sending 80% of our tariff revenue to Brussels, which we have to when in the customs union.
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Affordable houses aren’t necessarily shit.
And expensive ones are not necessarily good either.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
That’s fine and all but if the NMW is too low and you can’t live on it then the business is not sustainable anyway.
This is all very well in theory but it is those on salaries much higher than NMW who can theorise to their hearts content as to the value of employees.
There is that - but it is a symbiotic relationship between employer and employee.
It’s very well to say “raise the NMW”. But if the response is more automation and increased avoidance of NMW - where’s the response to that.
My preferred solution would be to keep NMW reasonable high, ie liveable, and then cut taxes that raise other costs, such as NI, rates, taxes on energy, etc. If the business is not viable purely on the cost of labour due to that labour needing a reasonable standard of living then either that business shouldn’t exist or capitalism doesn’t work.
Subsidy of labour and housing is an aberration. Even the fact the government has to subsidise child care is an aberration and a sign of something seriously wrong.
Only 850 of over 5000 seats affected and will now be fought.
Most in smaller Councils where only fraction of the seats are up for selection
By far biggest sector if the seats now to be fought are in the 4 big County Councils where all seats up and Tories under most pressure from Reform. Councils where Tories wanted voting stopped not Labour.
You can imagine the Reform Election leaflets in these areas now. Labour will not be barely mentioned. It will be full on Reform blutzkreig on the Tories
There are 20 more Labour councils mainly in the north and add in Wales and Scotland and it is going to be a terrible night for Labour
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Yep, people will buy whatever the bank can lend them. If we make poxy small houses, people will buy them and banks will lend to those because that is the available stock; if nice and larger houses were available, the national standard of housing rises and people live in superior housing because that's the available stock for banks to lend against.
United Kingdom The United Kingdom once had the most expansive houses by size in Europe with a former average size of 1,590 square feet. Nowadays, this area size has diminished to 818 square feet.
Just shocking really. Probably one of the contributors to the rising mental ill health in this country.
The comparison is particularly marked with the Netherlands, a country as densely populated as south-east England, but as your link says:
"The average home size in the Netherlands is 1,261 square feet, placing it at spot nine on the list. The country has an efficient approach to living spaces as Dutch homeowners prioritize functionality and prefer smart layouts that maximize space without compromising comfort. They also like their outdoor areas, such as terraces or small gardens, considering them important extensions of living space."
Yeah, my experience (from visiting a few friends, so limited) is that they make nice, spacious but small footprint homes. Often over three or four floors. Often the loft is built as proper useful living space too.
The Dutch frequently seem like a more sensible version of us. I wonder what is their secret?
Forcing builders to make a proportion of their construction “affordable homes” looks like a really stupid idea to me
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
Affordable houses aren’t necessarily shit.
And expensive ones are not necessarily good either.
As that Welsh guy with a snagging business has shown in his YouTube channel.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
That’s fine and all but if the NMW is too low and you can’t live on it then the business is not sustainable anyway.
This is all very well in theory but it is those on salaries much higher than NMW who can theorise to their hearts content as to the value of employees.
If you can’t live on the NMW then the issue is the cost of living is too high.
As head of DOGE you didnt save anything As head of policy you didnt propose any policies As Home Secretary can we therefore assume you wont deport anyone?
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
You are mixing up cost and value
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 800 Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000 Value produced = 1,500 Fully loaded cost = 800 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 560 Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000 Value produced = 2,000 Fully loaded cost = 500 Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500 Tax = 20% Post tax profit = 1,200 Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
That’s fine and all but if the NMW is too low and you can’t live on it then the business is not sustainable anyway.
This is all very well in theory but it is those on salaries much higher than NMW who can theorise to their hearts content as to the value of employees.
If you can’t live on the NMW then the issue is the cost of living is too high.
Government has far less control over the cost of living than the NWM.
Only 850 of over 5000 seats affected and will now be fought.
Most in smaller Councils where only fraction of the seats are up for selection
By far biggest sector if the seats now to be fought are in the 4 big County Councils where all seats up and Tories under most pressure from Reform. Councils where Tories wanted voting stopped not Labour.
You can imagine the Reform Election leaflets in these areas now. Labour will not be barely mentioned. It will be full on Reform blutzkreig on the Tories
There are 20 more Labour councils mainly in the north and add in Wales and Scotland and it is going to be a terrible night for Labour
Nobody said it wasn't going to be anything but a terrible night for Labour.
It'll be equally bad for the Tories.
Government has shit times mid term
Main Opposition having an equally shit time is unheard of.
Farage knows that, Farage has timed his Shadow Cabinet launch for maximum effect.
The big beasts of the Right are now in Reform Tanks.
Make no mistake this is extinction moment risk for the Tories.
Only 850 of over 5000 seats affected and will now be fought.
Most in smaller Councils where only fraction of the seats are up for selection
By far biggest sector if the seats now to be fought are in the 4 big County Councils where all seats up and Tories under most pressure from Reform. Councils where Tories wanted voting stopped not Labour.
You can imagine the Reform Election leaflets in these areas now. Labour will not be barely mentioned. It will be full on Reform blutzkreig on the Tories
Makes it all the more baffling that Labour inflicted the wound on themselves.
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
Reform in third would be what they deserve
High on their supply seems appropriate
It’s probably more that one big hitter has ploughed into a low volume market on Betfair Exchange, backing Labour, Lib Dem, Restore and the Greens while laying Reform. The bookmakers just follow the exchange prices
Off topic: I'm not an especially churchgoing type these days, but I do normally try and do something for lent, so this year I'm going to be keeping casual browsing and social media to an absolute minimum for the period.
So, I'll probably be keeping my posting on here to brief thoughts on the main events, starting with Gorton and Denton. I'm mentioning this not because I'll be so absent for so long that someone pipes up to wonder "where has pro_rata gone?" - I doubt that, more that if anyone catches me getting HY deep into pointless arguments or mooching around throwing in trivial one liners in the next weeks you have a right to gently hold me accountable.
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
I think it’s too early to say they’ve been rumbled. They definitely have given their opponents a huge attack line as a collection of disaffected former Tories, and that could (and probably will) come back to bite them, but they’re still polling around 29-31% with most pollsters, and still have a decent lead.
There is a lot of road left to run yet and lots of time for Reform to implode, but we’re not there yet and I’d hazard a guess we won’t be for some time - certainly not this year.
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
Reform in third would be what they deserve
High on their supply seems appropriate
It’s probably more that one big hitter has ploughed into a low volume market on Betfair Exchange, backing Labour, Lib Dem, Restore and the Greens while laying Reform. The bookmakers just follow the exchange prices
It's most likely a Reform big hitter.
Rope a Dope
Convince the Reform support they have to get out and vote and this is their big chance. The sum bet is petty cash to some of their backers.
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
Reform in third would be what they deserve
High on their supply seems appropriate
It’s probably more that one big hitter has ploughed into a low volume market on Betfair Exchange, backing Labour, Lib Dem, Restore and the Greens while laying Reform. The bookmakers just follow the exchange prices
It's most likely a Reform big hitter.
Rope a Dope
Convince the Reform support they have to get out and vote and this is their big chance. The sum bet is petty cash to some of their backers.
Use it to fight complacency
Most voters are not remotely interested in the latest betting odds
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
I think it’s too early to say they’ve been rumbled. They definitely have given their opponents a huge attack line as a collection of disaffected former Tories, and that could (and probably will) come back to bite them, but they’re still polling around 29-31% with most pollsters, and still have a decent lead.
There is a lot of road left to run yet and lots of time for Reform to implode, but we’re not there yet and I’d hazard a guess we won’t be for some time - certainly not this year.
People have been claiming Reform have been rumbled for a long time now. Like people calling a stock market crash they will be right eventually.
Why have labour closed up on Reform in the betting odds or am I misreading them ?
Reform have been rumbled. Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
I think it’s too early to say they’ve been rumbled. They definitely have given their opponents a huge attack line as a collection of disaffected former Tories, and that could (and probably will) come back to bite them, but they’re still polling around 29-31% with most pollsters, and still have a decent lead.
There is a lot of road left to run yet and lots of time for Reform to implode, but we’re not there yet and I’d hazard a guess we won’t be for some time - certainly not this year.
At the summit looking down. My opinion is the unveiling if Zahawi will be looked back upon as the beginning of the end The cracks will start showing in an underwhelming Scottish and London performance in May (and Gorton etc if they lose it)
Comments
2024-2029 may go down as a missed opportunity for LDs, I fear.
Seems partly a way of keeping Tice happy as Jenrick takes CoE it seems to me.
Let's be honest - no one can be confident about 2029 at this stage. I do agree, pace the spider trying to climb out the bowl, it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats and you'd better believe everyone in the party knows that too.
The assumption the Conservatives are going to clawback 20 LD seats is one which needs to be challenged. What we've seen in local council by-elections in areas of LD strength since 2024 hasn't been so much a further strengthening of LD support as a further weakening of Conservative support at the expense of Reform?
The assumption the Conservatives will miraculously return to the "heights" of 2024 can be challenged by polls showing them at 16-18%. How, if the party is losing a third of its 2024 vote, can it regain large numbers of LD seats without losing other seats to Reform? Yes, the Conservatives could slip further back in East Ham but that's not going to matter as they are fourth here anyway.
You can also apply the same challenge to the assumption the LDs will poll 11-12% -why not 16-18%? The truth is three years is a political eternity.
Not a surprise.
We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days.
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will
When the Supreme Court recently allowed immigration agents in the Los Angeles area to take race into consideration during sweeps, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that citizens shouldn’t be concerned.
“If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote, “they promptly let the individual go.”
But that is far from the reality many citizens have experienced. Americans have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot by immigration agents. They’ve had their necks kneeled on. They’ve been held outside in the rain while in their underwear. At least three citizens were pregnant when agents detained them. One of those women had already had the door of her home blown off while Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watched...
Maybe he is too young to remember that's where it comes from
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the perfect 2028 candidate for liberal women who thought Kamala Harris was too sharp-witted and articulate in 2024.
They should be allowed to build whatever the hell they want, within a sensible planning framework. They are businesses which need to make money if they’re going to build the number of homes we need
Increasing the supply of high end housing is still increasing the supply of homes, and so will still alleviate the pressure on the whole housing market. And it improves the overall quality of our homes and living standards
Building a load of shit houses seems perverse
It's made up of around 50% share in 70-80 seats and around 8% share in the rest.
The 8% share is because of invisibility of LDs locally and at national level.
But in existing LD seats and target seats LDs are VERY visible.
I agree it gets much steeper for the LDs after about 80-85 seats.
I'm not necessarily a typical switcher! But I do think that the LibDems need to have a clear direction nationally to get tactical votes.
Im predicting what i think will happen based on the current situation and what I expect to happen up to the next GE.
If i dont change my opinion (if the landscape changes) and I am wrong you can berate me all you like.
My proposal is not without support - the latest two MRPs trend either side of it.
https://x.com/th_midwesterner/status/2022681978911309884
During a "foreign policy" panel in Munich, Gretchen Whitmer said AOC knew more about foreign policy than her. She struggled to answer about Ukraine and even looked to a Trump ambassador for an answer.
If Tice and Yusuf didn't realise that their best case scenario was to be small fish in a big pond then more fool them.
Loads of housing policy can be seen as simply accepting that house prices are going to remain generally unaffordable due to a shortage of housing, and the policy exists merely so the politician can be seen to be doing something to help < insert favoured interest group here >.
There are only two ways to reduce house prices - build more houses, or reduce the amount of money available for the buying of houses (by reducing income multiples for mortgages, taxing investment income out of housing, or reducing the population).
I assume that will be challenged
And the dreadful Braverman has DEI post
I despair watching these far right entities thinking their divisive policies are attractive
They'll be the Shadow Cabinet in all but name to the majority of the population.
Yes the Conservatives have a candidate; the Green's don't but AFAIK they're backing the Independent.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/house-size-by-country
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom once had the most expansive houses by size in Europe with a former average size of 1,590 square feet. Nowadays, this area size has diminished to 818 square feet.
Just shocking really. Probably one of the contributors to the rising mental ill health in this country.
Then we can walk the talk.
Those that are getting built and sold at high prices is because there is insufficient sums getting built and aols to scratch the surface on the shortage.
TACO Unless Epstein Is In The News
e.g
'The SRO was initially allocated to the programme for 10% of his time, which increased to 30% in 2018. Previous SRO's were also SRO for the Boxer and Challenger programmes at the same time as Ajax. The SRO appointed in October 2021 was the first to be full-time on the programme'
Ajax did not have a full-time SRO for the first 11 years of its life cycle.
The MoD employs a quarter of a million people
https://x.com/thinkdefence/status/2023526184500285468
"The average home size in the Netherlands is 1,261 square feet, placing it at spot nine on the list. The country has an efficient approach to living spaces as Dutch homeowners prioritize functionality and prefer smart layouts that maximize space without compromising comfort. They also like their outdoor areas, such as terraces or small gardens, considering them important extensions of living space."
I'm sure Kemi will have a moan about it but a lot of the media will just plough on with whatever Nige calls them.
There's no actual law (except Short money) about this or written constitutional element.
One of the greatest of all Orators of any generation.
Spellbinding.
Born at the wrong time.
The one not so good memory I have of him though was at Wembley in 1990 when we congregated to welcome Nelson Mandela to London.
As an active member of the Anti Apartheid movement we got to meet him the day after.
His speech on the stage at Wembley was the most remarkable I'd ever heard. He told us to leave our hate at the door as he had done so many years before.
Jessie Jackson was there, not the man in person you'd have expected and he as over familiar with some of our lady Members shall we say.
Notwithstanding his Oratory will define him.
How sad that across the political spectrum in the UK there are precious few if any left. Stage managed theatre and auticue has destroyed a great skill.
Stephen Bush
@stephenkb.bsky.social
Literally every day there is some mad story about something Matt Goodwin, who in terms of 'actually viable candidates for a parliamentary seat' is the by-election candidate furthest from public opinion since, what...Bermondsey 1983?
https://bsky.app/profile/stephenkb.bsky.social/post/3mf2idfwbhk2r
If we all agree that there are wider economic and social gains to getting more people their own place, then there does need to be some sort of market intervention. Particularly on land hoarding.
Was it a larger number than his savings as head of DOGE?
Looking locally, a development of a thousand homes looks like a lot. But it isn’t compared to the housing defect.
A simple figure of merit - if a housing market doesn’t have 8%+ of empty properties, it’s under stocked.
To get to that, we would need to build millions of homes.
And as they are built and prices come down, demand would go *up* for a while - all the people crammed into HMOs and tiny properties (think couples in one bed flats) will start moving to larger properties.
If their policies weren't attractive to some, they wouldn't be divisive - because everyone would be against them.
...
(In fact, there isn’t a government equalities department. There was a Government Equalities Office, but now it is the women and equalities unit in the Cabinet Office.)
Braverman to abolish women ?
Nasty disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_supranuclear_palsy
Grumpy Tory retirement home. No policies. Empty suits
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/17/uk-frictionless-post-brexit-trade-border-project
The UK government has shelved a project to simplify trade border processes post-Brexit after spending £110m on a contract with Deloitte and IBM for it, according to reports.
The last Conservative government promised in 2020 to create the “world’s most effective border” by 2025 as part of its plan for a new trade system after Britain left the EU.
The government hoped a “single trade window” (STW) would simplify border processes by creating a single digital platform in which importers and exporters could upload all documentation linked to goods before they are transported. However, the STW project was paused in 2024 amid concerns over costs.
Government responses to freedom of information requests submitted by the thinktank TaxWatch, seen by the Financial Times, now suggest no money has been spent on the project since January last year, with the Treasury writing that the programme had been “brought to an early closure”.
A series of delays have hindered post-Brexit border arrangements. The National Audit Office estimated that the government spent at least £4.7bn on post-Brexit border controls in 2024.*
The TaxWatch director, Mike Lewis, told the FT: “For all intents and purposes the single trade window has been cancelled without HMRC or Deloitte and IBM having delivered anything after spending over £110m on it. But neither HMRC nor ministers appear to wish to admit this.”
The government said while the “delivery” of the STW had been paused for the 2025-26 financial year, “policy development” continued. There is still, however, no definitive timeframe for its implementation...
*Brexit dividend, contd.
In one year, that is approximately the cost of the entire Ajax programme.
Also for essentially no benefit.
Even if you had a capable government which had satisfying that demand as its number one priority, it would be the job of more than one term in office to to correct the demand/supply imbalance in the British housing market.
This is now one reason why it won't be done. Even with five years before the next election a government will know that if it tackles this problem seriously it will incur only costs and no benefits from doing so in its first (and, consequently, only) term in office.
High on their supply seems appropriate
I have a visceral ancestal dislike of the former, and suspect that the latter are rising as a kind of left-wing mirror image of Reform, but neither of them has quite such a negative effect as Team Nigel.
(Am I right that, despite now being in a party of 8 MPs, Romford's Andrew Rosindell still hasn't been trusted with a portfolio? It's cruel, but it's also quite funny.)
On some local online groups, the veteran NIMBYs are expressing shock at the “aggressive” attitude they are seeing from younger people. Instead of wanting to object to housing, the young are demanding “build build build”
Real Fuck The Greenbelt energy,
I wonder if that is where the Greens will come unstuck, in the end.
Niche market - 'worst dregs from the rejected 2024 option are here to save the nation'
The animals looked from Boris cabinet to Reform and already it was impossible to tell the difference between them.
Apparently AOC prepped for months on foreign policy before that interview.
What will be Sir Keir's route to even greater coolness: a tatoo, piercings or a Ducati motorbike?
Mark Mitchener
@markofagenius
·
15 Feb
Starmer is a pretty cool dude isn’t he and the media can’t cope with it.
https://x.com/markofagenius/status/2023178382016749818?s=20
If we assess there are 500 rats, 50% of the vote on the right, there may only be 400 rats who can survive if just a marginal shift to the centre right happens.
One side has some big string known beasts, the other have liitte eenny meany mini mice, Philp, Trott, Whetely, Atkins who will be simply gobbled up...
Thats why Tories are cracking their pants.
Right on Right fight to the death.
Bring it on.
It only makes sense for an employer to hire if value produced > cost.
Value produced can also be increased through capex.
But what employers are really interested is returns.
So (nb this assumes all employees are as productive as each other which isn’t the case)
Base case
Capital invested 5,000
Value produced = 1,500
Fully loaded cost = 500
Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,000
Tax = 20%
Post tax profit = 800
Return = 16% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
Increased NMW
Capital invested 5,000
Value produced = 1,500
Fully loaded cost = 800
Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 700
Tax = 20%
Post tax profit = 560
Return = 11% (below cost of capital)
Business is not sustainable - scale back, higher fewer people, let some of the less productive go
Invest in capex
Capital invested 7,000
Value produced = 2,000
Fully loaded cost = 500
Pre - tax profit (corporation) = 1,500
Tax = 20%
Post tax profit = 1,200
Return = 17% (vs typical cost of capital of 12%)
But real life is never as simple as this.
Capex works provided you can finance it and are willing to take the stress of running a more complex business. But if you can apply downward pressure on wages (eg through immigration) then you can increase returns for less risk
Increasing the NMW without increasing productivity prices some employees out of jobs if their cost exceeds their value
This is where you come back to the importance of investing in people / education by the government.
Only 850 of over 5000 seats affected and will now be fought.
Most in smaller Councils where only fraction of the seats are up for selection
By far biggest sector if the seats now to be fought are in the 4 big County Councils where all seats up and Tories under most pressure from Reform. Councils where Tories wanted voting stopped not Labour.
You can imagine the Reform Election leaflets in these areas now. Labour will not be barely mentioned. It will be full on Reform blutzkreig on the Tories
See why Barbegal was pretty unique in the Roman Empire.
This is all very well in theory but it is those on salaries much higher than NMW who can theorise to their hearts content as to the value of employees.
It’s very well to say “raise the NMW”. But if the response is more automation and increased avoidance of NMW - where’s the response to that.
Next you'll be telling me he can deliver a coherent speech.
Import/Export is a massive pain in the arse, with arrays of form filling needed. Even when you get everything right there's no guarantee that some other company whose stock is on the same vehicle got their right. Or that HMRC aren't going to pull your truck into Sevington for an indefinite period (one shipment last month lost 2 days there with customer increasingly angry on the phone to me demanding updates).
Our problem? Lack of a consistent strategy - are we trying to build "the world's most effective border" or reopen trade links? Lack of agreement on what we are trying to build. Lack of resources, lack of staff, lack of facilities.
We're utterly useless as a nation, with this preening chest beating "patriotism" attempting to disguise the embarrassment of reality.
Pause.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Pause, gasp.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Pause, gulp, gasp.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Falls off chair...
The benefit is not sending 80% of our tariff revenue to Brussels, which we have to when in the customs union.
Subsidy of labour and housing is an aberration. Even the fact the government has to subsidise child care is an aberration and a sign of something seriously wrong.
As head of DOGE you didnt save anything
As head of policy you didnt propose any policies
As Home Secretary can we therefore assume you wont deport anyone?
It'll be equally bad for the Tories.
Government has shit times mid term
Main Opposition having an equally shit time is unheard of.
Farage knows that, Farage has timed his Shadow Cabinet launch for maximum effect.
The big beasts of the Right are now in Reform Tanks.
Make no mistake this is extinction moment risk for the Tories.
I guess, if you believe those hamnered in 2025 learned absolutely nothing from it and havent been radically adjusting their approach to 2026
Reform's newly announced Shadow Cabinet is 100% privately educated.
Britain has not had a 100% privately educated Cabinet since 1955.
So, I'll probably be keeping my posting on here to brief thoughts on the main events, starting with Gorton and Denton. I'm mentioning this not because I'll be so absent for so long that someone pipes up to wonder "where has pro_rata gone?" - I doubt that, more that if anyone catches me getting HY deep into pointless arguments or mooching around throwing in trivial one liners in the next weeks you have a right to gently hold me accountable.
The sitting Government invariably takes a hammering after 2 years.
Unprecedented for the main opposition to be so affected.
Farage strategy will be to destroy the Toryvsitting Councillor base in Tory heartlands. An aging base. He'll seek to run those Councils by the next GE
His attack on Labour will then evolve. Labours greater threat is from the Greens. That's the fundamental mistake McSweeney made.
If Labour attack their left flank there is enough meat there for them to ensure they remain largest Party at GE.
Let Reform devour the Tories, Laviur must take the low hanging fruit and that is Polanski and the cult of Polanski.
Left v Right will be won by the Left if they combine or if Labour destroy the Polanski cult.
Right v Left will be won by Reform who will devour the Tories in to a small centrist rump if 50 seats tops.
There is a lot of road left to run yet and lots of time for Reform to implode, but we’re not there yet and I’d hazard a guess we won’t be for some time - certainly not this year.
Rope a Dope
Convince the Reform support they have to get out and vote and this is their big chance. The sum bet is petty cash to some of their backers.
Use it to fight complacency
He is closing his place in the poverty strewn, grimy back to back terraces of Henley-In-Arden.
https://x.com/marcherreborn/status/2023744451743494546?s=61
Costs are a problem, but I wonder if his focus is his new place he’s opening in Brum too.
My opinion is the unveiling if Zahawi will be looked back upon as the beginning of the end
The cracks will start showing in an underwhelming Scottish and London performance in May (and Gorton etc if they lose it)