Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another reason to justify Zac’s status as favourite

SystemSystem Posts: 12,651
edited June 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another reason to justify Zac’s status as favourite

At the general election in London, relatively speaking, Labour did better, the Tories did worse than the rest of the country, which might indicate a slight resistance to Crosby’s methods. However given his past success in London with the current mayor, this should mitigate any worries.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    The problem with a Crosby campaign, which will be tough on immigration, tough on crime, pro motorist and populist, is that it will turn off all the potentially new voters Zac might otherwise bring in. That does not mean Zac could not win, especially if he faces Khan, but I don't see this as a gamechanger
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    In any case, as the Evening Standard Yougov poll shows it should be Jowell who is favourite, then Zac and Khan

    Amongst London voters in a head to head the figures are:

    Jowell 35%
    Goldsmith 26%

    Khan 29%
    Goldsmith 29%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Surely, Mr Crosby will deliver a campaign based on winning messaging for Londoners - not the whole UK.

    I think you're comparing apples and pears here.
    HYUFD said:

    The problem with a Crosby campaign, which will be tough on immigration, tough on crime, pro motorist and populist, is that it will turn off all the potentially new voters Zac might otherwise bring in. That does not mean Zac could not win, especially if he faces Khan, but I don't see this as a gamechanger

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    HYUFD said:

    In any case, as the Evening Standard Yougov poll shows it should be Jowell who is favourite, then Zac and Khan

    Amongst London voters in a head to head the figures are:

    Jowell 35%
    Goldsmith 26%

    Khan 29%
    Goldsmith 29%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

    Remind me of the accuracy of YouGov's final eve of general election poll?

    Did it overstate Lab and underestimate the Tories?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    HYUFD said:

    The problem with a Crosby campaign, which will be tough on immigration, tough on crime, pro motorist and populist, is that it will turn off all the potentially new voters Zac might otherwise bring in. That does not mean Zac could not win, especially if he faces Khan, but I don't see this as a gamechanger


    How can Khan even be possibly considered for Mayor - when nobody calls him by his first name?

    Ken, Boris, Zac?

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited June 2015
    HYUFD said:

    The problem with a Crosby campaign, which will be tough on immigration, tough on crime, pro motorist and populist, is that it will turn off all the potentially new voters Zac might otherwise bring in. That does not mean Zac could not win, especially if he faces Khan, but I don't see this as a gamechanger

    Crosby is very good at working out who the electorate is and what part of it he needs to win. I don't think he'll necessarily push the buttons you are expecting. And with turnout likely to be around 35-40% motivating your own supporters is key.

    And if you think Jowell should be favourite based on that YouGov polling, you know what to do! I agree she'd be shorter against Zac than Sadiq, but she has to beat Sadiq first in a contest with a very different electorate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    MarkHopkins said:

    HYUFD said:

    The problem with a Crosby campaign, which will be tough on immigration, tough on crime, pro motorist and populist, is that it will turn off all the potentially new voters Zac might otherwise bring in. That does not mean Zac could not win, especially if he faces Khan, but I don't see this as a gamechanger


    How can Khan even be possibly considered for Mayor - when nobody calls him by his first name?

    Ken, Boris, Zac?

    I hope he becomes angry during the campaign, so I can do a thread headlined

    "The Wrath of Khan"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    TP It did not work in 2005 when Crosby managed the Howard campaign and Tessa Jowell is a different proposition to Ed Miliband or a rehashed Ken Livingstone
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    10yrs ago?
    HYUFD said:

    TP It did not work in 2005 when Crosby managed the Howard campaign and Tessa Jowell is a different proposition to Ed Miliband or a rehashed Ken Livingstone

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Here's a story about the Labour party that's potentially rather important:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/24/labour-split-plan-english-wing-john-cruddas
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited June 2015
    TSE Yougov had the election tied 34%-34% and made the same errors as everyone else, though even if yougov made the same errors in this Mayor Poll Jowell would still lead Zac by 1%.
    However, in 2012 yougov slightly overstated Boris' final lead on the Mayoral race, so that effectively cancels out your point anyway. Yougov had Boris winning 53%-47%, Boris won by only 51.53%-48.47%
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    As far as I can tell Zac's in the Tories because he's quite posh, socially mixes with Tories and is eurosceptic.

    If it were not for those things, I suspect he would be in the Lib Dems or even the Greens.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited June 2015
    TP I also think Labour members want to win, they may vote for Tessa on that basis but we shall see, she leads Khan narrowly with Labour voters at the moment in that poll

    MH Yes, some voters may think the Aga Khan is running!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015
    The key for the Tories to win the London mayor election is having a candidate that is well known, well liked, and perceived as harmless.
    I don't know if Goldsmith ticks all three.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Plato Crosby's methods are pretty much motivate the base and scare the floaters about their opponents and find 'wedge' issues, hence both John and Michael Howard running hard on an anti immigration message, and Cameron's anti Miliband-Sturgeon campaign in 2015. Crosby's 2012 campaign was also very pro motorist and also emphasised immigration
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank said:

    Here's a story about the Labour party that's potentially rather important:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/24/labour-split-plan-english-wing-john-cruddas

    Isn't it a pretty dangerous thing for Labour to actively fight Cruddas setting up English Labour? What would that say to voters in the north of England?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Message to HYUFD, the Trump surge is not confined to N.Hampshire, it looks national :
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/trump-on-the-rise-but-could-give-clinton-landslide.html

    The American Berlusconi will pose an immense problem for other republicans.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Speedy I don't think Ken was perceived as harmless, nor was Boris behind the bluster. Rudy Giuliani in New York certainly was not. I also would not rule out Lord Sugar running now the Boris and Ken show is over, he has the money to run as an independent and the name recognition and has cross-party appeal, he could well win
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    CasinoRoyale Of course his father's Referendum party probably cost the Tories a dozen or more seats in 1997
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    TSE Yes, his name does have its uses
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Plato True, but that was against Blair and Tessa Jowell is a Blairite who is respected for the way she won and helped organise the London Olympics. She will be a tougher nut for Crosby to crack than Ken Livingstone on his 4th successive run and Ed Miliband
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    AF More Federal parties with more independent branches in the home nations is a good idea
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    antifrank said:

    Here's a story about the Labour party that's potentially rather important:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/24/labour-split-plan-english-wing-john-cruddas

    TSE flashed up a tweet earlier on this and then deleted it, I thought it must have been a spoof. This seems completely barmy to me - the best quote:

    " However, there is clear support among some English Labour MPs, including Graham Allen, who said he “fully supports Jon Cruddas’s call for distinct English, Scottish and Welsh Labour parties as part of a federal Labour party”.

    The FLP, I think the Labour party has been infected with SLABitis. It does beg the question will Scottish Labour members be voting in both the Scottish and the "other" leadership election ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Speedy Wow, I knew he had taken second in NH, he is now 3rd in Kentucky too behind Bush and Paul. I still think Jeb will be nominee in the end, but Trump could well do a Perot and go 3rd party as happened in the last Bush v Clinton battle in 1992
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    Whenever I come across the name Khan I am reminded of that character in The Cruel Sea who had a soul destroying prewar job as an advertising copy writer. He walked off the job the day he was asked to come up with a slogan for Bolger's Butterscotch Treacle Toffee, leaving behind the offering, "Bolger's Treacle: rich and dark like the Aga Khan".

    UKIPper avant la lettre.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,866
    Mr. Calum, if there is an English Labour it'd be interesting to see whether London members' relative strength would see them have the whip hand in steering policy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    edited June 2015
    The idea of a distinctive English Labour party might work, indeed if we end up with something approaching an English Parliament it may be a necessity to distinguish policy ideas in the various devolved Parliaments.

    Labour last had an English majority in 2001 and it's currently 319-206 in the Tories' favour - that's a lot of seats to make up and will need very different ideas and policies compared to those that will win back seats in Scotland and Wales.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,315
    Speedy said:

    The key for the Tories to win the London mayor election is having a candidate that is well known, well liked, and perceived as harmless.
    I don't know if Goldsmith ticks all three.

    I'd have thought a maverick like streak would be particularly necessary for a Tory candidate even more than a Labour one, given Labour's stronger position in the capital.

    Goldsmith seems fairly soft and likable as far as Tories go (I'm not instinctively opposed to Tories myself, but he doesn't come across as a 'scary', divisive Tory, not sure if that's truly the case though), though not super well known yet?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    In further US 2016 news Jindal has just announced his candidacy on Facebook
    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153008087295095

    Christie due to announce next week
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-2016-bid-announcement-119354.html
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Calum, if there is an English Labour it'd be interesting to see whether London members' relative strength would see them have the whip hand in steering policy.

    I read somewhere that over 50% of overall Labour party members live in London, once you strip out the Scottish and Welsh members, London Labour would have the whip hand on policy of the ELP. I think establishing a federal party before we have a federal system of government is putting the cart before the horse.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited June 2015
    Sandpit Labour actually won a majority of seats in England in 2005. Labour won 286 English seats, the Tories 193, the LDs 47 and Galloway and Dr Richard Taylor also won seats
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Channel 4 News report: 65 year old man from Pakistan pulled out of the back of a lorry in Calais.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit Labour actually won a majority of seats in England in 2005. Labour won 286 English seats, the Tories 193, the LDs 47 and Galloway and Dr Richard Taylor also won seats
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

    Grr, damn you and your... facts! ;-)

    My confusion was that there were more votes for the Tories in 2005 but you're of course completely right that Lab still had the seat majority until 2010.

    Mea Culpa.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,619
    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    That's completely bonkers!
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    That's completely bonkers!
    He wants to create more secure tenancies - by making it much harder for private landlords to operate. Clear thinking there from Jezza.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,735
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HYUFD said:

    The problem with a Crosby campaign, which will be tough on immigration, tough on crime, pro motorist and populist, is that it will turn off all the potentially new voters Zac might otherwise bring in. That does not mean Zac could not win, especially if he faces Khan, but I don't see this as a gamechanger


    How can Khan even be possibly considered for Mayor - when nobody calls him by his first name?

    Ken, Boris, Zac?

    I hope he becomes angry during the campaign, so I can do a thread headlined

    "The Wrath of Khan"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,735
    AndyJS said:

    Channel 4 News report: 65 year old man from Pakistan pulled out of the back of a lorry in Calais.

    I do hope TSE wasn't hurt...

    :lol:
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited June 2015
    Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    That's completely bonkers!
    But the debate has been widened, eh? Well done Jeremy's nominators!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,735
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit Labour actually won a majority of seats in England in 2005. Labour won 286 English seats, the Tories 193, the LDs 47 and Galloway and Dr Richard Taylor also won seats
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

    But the Tories actually got more votes in 2005!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit Labour actually won a majority of seats in England in 2005. Labour won 286 English seats, the Tories 193, the LDs 47 and Galloway and Dr Richard Taylor also won seats
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

    Labour and the Lib Dems have lost 118 seats (combined) since then in England and dropped from a combined 58.3% of the vote to 39.8%.

    It's an astonishing turnaround. And it would look even worse if compared to 1997 or 2001.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    calum said:

    antifrank said:

    Here's a story about the Labour party that's potentially rather important:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/24/labour-split-plan-english-wing-john-cruddas

    TSE flashed up a tweet earlier on this and then deleted it, I thought it must have been a spoof. This seems completely barmy to me - the best quote:

    " However, there is clear support among some English Labour MPs, including Graham Allen, who said he “fully supports Jon Cruddas’s call for distinct English, Scottish and Welsh Labour parties as part of a federal Labour party”.

    The FLP, I think the Labour party has been infected with SLABitis. It does beg the question will Scottish Labour members be voting in both the Scottish and the "other" leadership election ?
    Front for the Liberation of Peckham
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    Creative. Not sure how that'd be made to work. It would collapse the private sector rental market, or lead to all tenants being booted out after <2-3 years to avoid them being able to exercise their residency right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited June 2015
    Sunil So what, so did Al Gore in 2000, Heath in Feb 1974 and Attlee in 1951, fat lot of good it did them under FPTP!

    If we had had PR in 2005 we would have had a Labour-LD coalition anyway
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,735
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil So what, so did Al Gore in 2000, Heath in Feb 1974 and Attlee in 1951, fat lot of good it did them under FPTP!

    If we had had PR in 2005 we would have had a Labour-LD coalition anyway

    Damn FPTP, eh?!
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy I don't think Ken was perceived as harmless, nor was Boris behind the bluster. Rudy Giuliani in New York certainly was not. I also would not rule out Lord Sugar running now the Boris and Ken show is over, he has the money to run as an independent and the name recognition and has cross-party appeal, he could well win

    Lord Sugar. Mega millionaire property developer. Age 68. Close to 70 when the election starts. Your fired...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2015
    To be fair, watching Channel 4 News, some of the migrants in Calais can string an English sentence together better than a lot of English people.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    The Times are starting to look like a right bunch of numpties:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/no-the-snp-isnt-planning-a-republican-insurrection-heres-why/

    At least it's not as bad as the day they printed BBC Scotlandshire's Mharai Black's spoof dairy and attributed it to BBC Scotland.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited June 2015
    Sandpit Thanks, you and Sunil are right though that the Tories were ahead on votes, even if by only 0.3%
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Sadiq Khan interview: "London can't have somebody stuck in the 1980s or 1990s"

    The Labour London mayoral candidate on why he is the "modern" figure the city needs, Tessa Jowell's "control freakery", and Islamist extremism."

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/sadiq-khan-interview-london-cant-have-somebody-stuck-1980s-or-1990s
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Sunil Indeed, don't blame me, I voted for AV!!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    This same argument could have been applied to the original Right to Buy (local authorities who technically owned the housing weren't willing participants). What's the difference?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited June 2015
    Casino Indeed, the fact UKIP has quadrupled its voteshare has also had an impact and it does show Scotland was not to blame for Labour's loss. Yet, as 1945, 1983, 1997 and 2010 show FPTP can produce dramatic levels of seat changes if the mood is in one direction and if the mood is against the Tories in 2020 they could swing back
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Flightpath He would be the same age as Hillary who will be 69 if elected
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    AndyJS said:

    "Sadiq Khan interview: "London can't have somebody stuck in the 1980s or 1990s"

    The Labour London mayoral candidate on why he is the "modern" figure the city needs, Tessa Jowell's "control freakery", and Islamist extremism."

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/sadiq-khan-interview-london-cant-have-somebody-stuck-1980s-or-1990s

    Amusing as it is to see the red team continuously kicking each other in their bid to win the various ‘titles’ on offer, I’m not sure this is either good for London or for Labour. – on the bright side, at least it keeps them occupied and causing less damage in other areas…
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    Blaster Bates had a similar story about a pilot, and an air hostess which was mistakenly transmitted. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33253979
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,706
    edited June 2015
    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    I have sold two buy to lets to sitting tenants. Very easy cheap transactions, both parties happy with the outcome. Not sure I would do buy to let with a discount imposed by legislation !
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    HYUFD said:

    Casino Indeed, the fact UKIP has quadrupled its voteshare has also had an impact and it does show Scotland was not to blame for Labour's loss. Yet, as 1945, 1983, 1997 and 2010 show FPTP can produce dramatic levels of seat changes if the mood is in one direction and if the mood is against the Tories in 2020 they could swing back

    I don't think there'll be any real swing back to the 'Left' in England for as long as inmigration remains out of control.

    Doesn't mean there won't be a swing against the Tories sufficient to put Labour back in office, of course.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,575
    philiph said:

    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    I have sold two buy to lets to sitting tenants. Very easy cheap transactions, both parties happy with the outcome. Not sure I would do buy to let with a discount imposed by legislation !
    Maybe I have misunderstood this, but is he saying private owners of property would be forced to sell at a discount? That is State theft of private property surely!!
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    I interpreted his proposal as the government funding the difference. He stated that the money would be raised by removed tax reliefs for private landlords.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    AndyJS said:

    Channel 4 News report: 65 year old man from Pakistan pulled out of the back of a lorry in Calais.

    I do hope TSE wasn't hurt...

    :lol:
    TSE doesn't look a day over 64 :-)

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    calum said:

    The Times are starting to look like a right bunch of numpties:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/no-the-snp-isnt-planning-a-republican-insurrection-heres-why/

    At least it's not as bad as the day they printed BBC Scotlandshire's Mharai Black's spoof dairy and attributed it to BBC Scotland.

    The Times is really seeing its journalistic standards fall under Murdoch. The story about the Snowden leaks harming British spies turned out to be based on nothing more than off the record chats with government sources. It doesn't look good.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Casino Indeed, but both Burnham and Kendall have taken a tougher line on immigration than Ed Miliband so it could happen under them
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    JEO said:

    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?

    It's ironic that a country with an incredibly low population density like Australia takes a tough stance on migrants whereas we are relatively tolerant despite having one of the highest population densities in the world.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    AndyJS said:

    JEO said:

    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?

    It's ironic that a country with an incredibly low population density like Australia takes a tough stance on migrants whereas we are relatively tolerant despite having one of the highest population densities in the world.

    Given the number of people who voted UKIP at the last election, and the large number of people who cite immigration as a problem for the country, I don't think "we" as a country are particularly tolerant about it.

    Australia is not constrained by being in the EU.

    Although after the last Eurovision contest, who knows what will happen in the future?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,710
    Off-topic:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11692974/Asbo-dwarf-jailed-after-impersonating-a-Dalek-and-threatening-woman-with-a-butterknife.html
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    JEO said:

    calum said:

    The Times are starting to look like a right bunch of numpties:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/no-the-snp-isnt-planning-a-republican-insurrection-heres-why/

    At least it's not as bad as the day they printed BBC Scotlandshire's Mharai Black's spoof dairy and attributed it to BBC Scotland.

    The Times is really seeing its journalistic standards fall under Murdoch. The story about the Snowden leaks harming British spies turned out to be based on nothing more than off the record chats with government sources. It doesn't look good.
    Seemingly the Palace denied the story three hours before they went ahead and published it anyway. This does not bode well for the EU REF, with Murdoch being a Boo, you can already envisage the scary headlines being pumped out day after day and retweeted in a frenzy by the relevant supporters. Sadly I have already started to do some of my own research, suffice to say the CAP is barmy and the sums involved are eye watering, oh to be a French farmer !!
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    calum said:

    JEO said:

    calum said:

    The Times are starting to look like a right bunch of numpties:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/no-the-snp-isnt-planning-a-republican-insurrection-heres-why/

    At least it's not as bad as the day they printed BBC Scotlandshire's Mharai Black's spoof dairy and attributed it to BBC Scotland.

    The Times is really seeing its journalistic standards fall under Murdoch. The story about the Snowden leaks harming British spies turned out to be based on nothing more than off the record chats with government sources. It doesn't look good.
    Sadly I have already started to do some of my own research, suffice to say the CAP is barmy and the sums involved are eye watering, oh to be a French farmer !!
    Or a heavily subsidised Scottish sheep farmer.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Sadly, Murdoch junior is not as sceptical as papa, so I suspect the News Corp papers will be boringly quiet during the EU referendum.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    rottenborough said:

    philiph said:

    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    I have sold two buy to lets to sitting tenants. Very easy cheap transactions, both parties happy with the outcome. Not sure I would do buy to let with a discount imposed by legislation !
    Maybe I have misunderstood this, but is he saying private owners of property would be forced to sell at a discount? That is State theft of private property surely!!
    Why be surprised by a communist in the Labour party?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited June 2015
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    This kind of crack-pottery will see Labour lose the next election too.

    Middle England became landlords when Brown and Co shagged the pension system senseless between 1997 and 2010, and interest rates collapsed. No-one's going to win back those votes by screwing over their retirement plans again.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    JEO said:

    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?


    Not that simple, the game is this. If it cant be determined what country you come from, they cant send you back.

    Which is why aeroplane toilets often are blocked up with passports.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    JEO said:

    calum said:

    The Times are starting to look like a right bunch of numpties:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/no-the-snp-isnt-planning-a-republican-insurrection-heres-why/

    At least it's not as bad as the day they printed BBC Scotlandshire's Mharai Black's spoof dairy and attributed it to BBC Scotland.

    The Times is really seeing its journalistic standards fall under Murdoch. The story about the Snowden leaks harming British spies turned out to be based on nothing more than off the record chats with government sources. It doesn't look good.

    Murdoch bought the times 30 years ago, and has no control over its editorial decisions. Can you really reflect on how the newspaper was run pre 1981 and claim that there is a change?
  • eekeek Posts: 31,053
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    As a Labour Supporter he gets my vote.

    It may be an unfair policy for some but at least its a policy... and you really shouldn't have one rule for those lucky enough to qualify for a housing association or council house and another for those who don't..
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,735
    More man-love for Napoleon from Andrew Roberts on BBC2 :)

    Wonder how he'll describe his disastrous Russia Campaign of 1812?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Casino_Royale said:

    Danny565 said:

    A Labour leadership candidate has come up with an actual idea: Jeremy Corbyn suggests giving private tenants the right to buy.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

    Creative. Not sure how that'd be made to work. It would collapse the private sector rental market, or lead to all tenants being booted out after <2-3 years to avoid them being able to exercise their residency right.</p>
    Brilliant stuff. Within 5 years after an initial slump in property prices, we would have more under occupation and rental rates in London would have doubled for those few available for rent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,027
    I think the Tory, SNP and Corbyn's proposals for forced discount sales are all pretty similiar sounding to me and all a bit socialist !
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    notme said:

    JEO said:

    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?


    Not that simple, the game is this. If it cant be determined what country you come from, they cant send you back.

    Which is why aeroplane toilets often are blocked up with passports.
    Really? Teeth tell us where a person grew up. Maybe there are other signs in hair and various samples that could be used? Schengen produces the Calais problem.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    As a Labour Supporter he gets my vote.

    It may be an unfair policy for some but at least its a policy... and you really shouldn't have one rule for those lucky enough to qualify for a housing association or council house and another for those who don't..
    Ever wonder why Labour lost the GE?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Exclusive: Nick Clegg offered to resign as Lib Dem leader a year before 2015 election

    http://t.gu.com/OL0Pn
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    notme said:

    JEO said:

    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?


    Not that simple, the game is this. If it cant be determined what country you come from, they cant send you back.

    Which is why aeroplane toilets often are blocked up with passports.
    Really? Teeth tell us where a person grew up. Maybe there are other signs in hair and various samples that could be used? Schengen produces the Calais problem.
    You are right, in that if we were a member of Schengen, we wouldn't have the Calais problem :-)

    More seriously, Switzerland is a member of Schengen, and is massively richer than we are. We could probably learn something from them.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Exclusive: Nick Clegg offered to resign as Lib Dem leader a year before 2015 election

    http://t.gu.com/OL0Pn

    "Offered to resign"

    If he had sufficient gumption he would have just quit
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    rcs1000 said:


    More seriously, Switzerland is a member of Schengen, and is massively richer than we are. We could probably learn something from them.

    That would mean...

    Unemployment Benefits in Switzerland
    http://geneva.angloinfo.com/information/working/unemployment/

    I.e leave the EU and apply a benefits system that is not held-back by EU rules.
    (makes it a less attractive place to go for vagrants)

  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Scott_P said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Exclusive: Nick Clegg offered to resign as Lib Dem leader a year before 2015 election

    http://t.gu.com/OL0Pn

    "Offered to resign"

    If he had sufficient gumption he would have just quit
    Interesting article. Cable's a piece of work - good riddance.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    Sounds like something straight out of the Pol Pot playbook to me. Utter and total bonkers madness. Disappropriation of private property. How to collapse an economy in easy steps.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,053
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    As a Labour Supporter he gets my vote.

    It may be an unfair policy for some but at least its a policy... and you really shouldn't have one rule for those lucky enough to qualify for a housing association or council house and another for those who don't..
    Ever wonder why Labour lost the GE?
    Note my use of the word supporter rather than voter...

    However, I'm merely ensuring that the utterly insane housing association proposals are extended to their (il)logical end point. Its actually funny watching the Tories having to implement plans they only created to be able to drop in coalition talks...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MyBurningEars said:

    watford30 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    This kind of crack-pottery will see Labour lose the next election too.

    Middle England became landlords when Brown and Co shagged the pension system senseless between 1997 and 2010, and interest rates collapsed. No-one's going to win back those votes by screwing over their retirement plans again.
    Counterintuition of the day: suitably edited, I think the policy is actually a better fit for the Conservatives than Labour. I think Cameron should consider nicking it off Corbyn.

    There are disadvantages of living in a society with high proportion of owner occupation. Labour markets are more flexible when renting is the norm, so home ownership can lead to higher levels of structural unemployment.

    But there are advantages of living in a "property-owning democracy" too, as any Conservative knows. Something that creates conditions for more people to own their homes is a particular bonus for the Tories, since one of their longer-term threats is the decline in home ownership. People who are have the security of owning their own residence, and are empowered by that, are more likely to take on a middle-class Tory-voting mindset. Besides, the economy as a whole would be better off if incentives could be put in plce to divert a decent chunk of BTL investment to more productive causes.
    I agree. Within the Corbyn craziness is the germ of a good idea. The problem though is not the buy-to-let; it is the buy-to-speculate. As Charles has pointed out in the past, many of the posh flats in his area are occupied only a few weeks a year. At least the buy-to-lets are providing homes to people.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    Pedants corner

    Should be "yours faithfully" as you started with actual name .. :-). ;-)
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    watford30 said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    This kind of crack-pottery will see Labour lose the next election too.

    Middle England became landlords when Brown and Co shagged the pension system senseless between 1997 and 2010, and interest rates collapsed. No-one's going to win back those votes by screwing over their retirement plans again.
    Dead right. Brother Gordon's brainless screwing over of the pension system in the private sector will hopefully be hung around his neck for posterity. The catastrophe on his watch and worsened by his legislation will be one of the running themes of the next two or three decades as the chickens come home to roost and normal working folk wonder why their working into their early 70's and beyond. The boom in BTL is one of the symptoms of this monumental balls up.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Moses_ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    Pedants corner

    Should be "yours faithfully" as you started with actual name .. :-). ;-)
    Other way round Moses! You can't be sincere if you don't know their name, hence the faith.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2015
    ITV news: sounds like tonight's Greece / EU meeting has unexpectedly hit the buffers.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    notme said:

    JEO said:

    Given the sheer scale of economic immigrants illegally entering into the UK and then claiming asylum, isn't it about time we ignored the European courts and made sure these people are detained permanently until they get refugee status or are deported?


    Not that simple, the game is this. If it cant be determined what country you come from, they cant send you back.

    Which is why aeroplane toilets often are blocked up with passports.
    If we don't know where they come from and they won't say maybe they should get temporary leave to remain but definitely no citizenship at any point, even by marriage.

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    MyBurningEars said:

    welshowl said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    Sounds like something straight out of the Pol Pot playbook to me. Utter and total bonkers madness. Disappropriation of private property. How to collapse an economy in easy steps.
    There's plenty of appropriation of private property by the government already. For example land can be appropriated for planning purposes. The important thing is whether the appropriation is subject to appropriate compensation. Corbyn's proposal seems to be that landlords would get the full market value of the property, with the state "topping up" the payment of the tenant, using funds raised by stopping a "tax break" (actually, bog-standard tax treatment of interest payments, but hey-ho) to landlords. It's not the same as compelling the landlord to sell at sub-market value, which would stink much more of misappropriation.

    I think a bigger problem with the proposal is that it would discourage landlords from taking on long-term tenants for fear of RTB being invoked, which would damage security of tenure.
    Yes the last sentence sums it up. People would head for the hills and flee the market. Honestly even the thought of these numpties implementing these kind of idiocies just makes me want to stick all my old age savings in Swiss Francs out of the reach of buggering about by the likes of Corbyn, Miliband, and Brown. They just don't seem to live on the same planet I'm having to make a living on frankly.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited June 2015
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Moses_ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    Pedants corner

    Should be "yours faithfully" as you started with actual name .. :-). ;-)
    Other way round Moses! You can't be sincere if you don't know their name, hence the faith.
    Ha... Years and years ago we were taught " faithful friend sincerely sir. " mmmm.... No doubt you are though correct.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    AndyJS said:

    ITV news: sounds like tonight's Greece / EU meeting has unexpectedly hit the buffers.

    Reuters

    Greece and EU finance ministers hit a new impasse on Wednesday as creditors accused Athens of failing to compromise despite a looming default next week that risks bouncing it out of the euro.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MyBurningEars said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    MyBurningEars said:


    Counterintuition of the day: suitably edited, I think the policy is actually a better fit for the Conservatives than Labour. I think Cameron should consider nicking it off Corbyn.

    There are disadvantages of living in a society with high proportion of owner occupation. Labour markets are more flexible when renting is the norm, so home ownership can lead to higher levels of structural unemployment.

    But there are advantages of living in a "property-owning democracy" too, as any Conservative knows. Something that creates conditions for more people to own their homes is a particular bonus for the Tories, since one of their longer-term threats is the decline in home ownership. People who are have the security of owning their own residence, and are empowered by that, are more likely to take on a middle-class Tory-voting mindset. Besides, the economy as a whole would be better off if incentives could be put in plce to divert a decent chunk of BTL investment to more productive causes.

    I agree. Within the Corbyn craziness is the germ of a good idea. The problem though is not the buy-to-let; it is the buy-to-speculate. As Charles has pointed out in the past, many of the posh flats in his area are occupied only a few weeks a year. At least the buy-to-lets are providing homes to people.
    I'm glad you said that doc, I was wondering if by seeing the positives in the idea I might be going mad. At least I am not mad and alone.

    I'd be interested to know whether the BTL ("BTS") bubble makes us more vulnerable to a housing crash than before, or whether it shields us somewhat - it certainly creates a fairly large class of people who would be utterly ruined by falls in the value of housing, particularly when they need to remortgage parts of their portfolio. On the other hand, less people own houses as a result of it, so in some sense fewer people would be directly affected. My inclination is that anything that encourages speculation must have a built-in hazard of bringing us back to earth with a bump, but I would welcome a better-informed opinion.
    A lot would depend on gearing. Once the value of a property is decreasing, the % of a mortgage shoots up. Once the asset is worth less than the mortgage there would be distress sales. Both BTL and BTS would disappear.

    The price crash would free a lot of property for sale. It would scare off international "safe haven" buyers. On the other hand it would ruin a lot of individuals, possibly also a fresh banking crisis. It would also put off a lot of potential buyers!

    Ending tax relief for debt interest on property (or any asset) may be a useful mechanism.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited June 2015
    eek said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

    Private tenants do - of course - already have a right to buy. Like all transactions in a free and fair society, this is based upon the principle of willing buyer, willing seller. You seem to think it works with only half the parties being willing participants. I could draw a crude analogy, but shall not.

    Yours sincerely,
    Someone with a Brain

    The private renters will get a huge discount and it will be funded by making private landlords sell off their most expensive properties. Seems like joined up thinking to me.
    As a Labour Supporter he gets my vote.

    It may be an unfair policy for some but at least its a policy... and you really shouldn't have one rule for those lucky enough to qualify for a housing association or council house and another for those who don't..
    Ever wonder why Labour lost the GE?
    Note my use of the word supporter rather than voter...
    However, I'm merely ensuring that the utterly insane housing association proposals are extended to their (il)logical end point. Its actually funny watching the Tories having to implement plans they only created to be able to drop in coalition talks...
    What is utterly insane are housing associations in London sitting on properties worth £750k+ when the rebuild cost is £200k. it just needs a forceful approach to brown land and multiple skyscrapers to provide London with the housing stock that it needs. Housing Associations lack the drive to tackle it. RTB and selling off their top end properties will shake them up. But they could always wake up and take sound financial decisions and sell their top end themselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025