Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nineteen days to go and the betting moves back to Corbyn
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nineteen days to go and the betting moves back to Corbyn
Corbyn at almost his tightest level yet on Betfair. The little slip of the weekend reversed. pic.twitter.com/jb0xB37ar9
0
Comments
Wow.
Edit: and my first first for a few weeks.
The population is growing therefore we need more housing. Yes BTL, mortgage credit, land banking and other factors come into play as well all of which needs reform no arguments from me, but increasing the population by millions whilst building too few housing plays a massive part as well.
And you've still given no good reason for Cambridge to have a Green Belt other than "everyone knows that it's needed" and the fact that you live near there.
He has a huge cut-and-paste job FPT.
And it's a she, btw!
PB is obsessed with the idea of a Labour collapse and annihilation. Sometimes I think this site engages in ridiculous hyperbole. This is one of those times.
There is the idea Labour will split, with the Blairites moving away from Labour. While many MPs will oppose Corbyn-politics, most of them are going to attempt to shift him out than actually leave Labour. For a start, there is History - in the SDP - which says that these kind of ventures are not profitable and only serve to splinter the centre-left rather than unite it. The second, is that according to Dan Hodges, many of the Blairites - such as Umunna are already planning a combat Corbyn strategy anyway, the 'Free French' strategy. The third point, is that unlike the SDP figures, Umunna, Creasy etc still are on the rise as far as political careers are concerned. SDP ers such as Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins had already been in power, and held cabinet positions - so had nothing to lose. Many 2010 onwards MPs have yet to achieve this, and know that joining a splinter party will make that even less likely than now.
In the previous thread, I saw comparisons with Labour now, with the demise of the Liberal party. But their demise came as a huge change - the introduction of franchise to married over thirty women, and men over 18 - was introduced. Correlating with that, was the huge Labour and trade union movement. Today, there is no comparable social movement, or change in the franchise. Some will mention the SNP, but there is no equal to them in England as far as a challenger to Labour is concerned. The SNP, contesting a election which involved a part PR system held government positions, which meant that they could be seen as a viable alternative to Labour. Other parties, in England contest elections under a FPTP system which makes replicating SNP success a lot more harder.
Labour, generally has two sets of people that vote for it. The socially liberal, metropolitan centre-left and the more socially conservative types who fit into WWC stereotypes. The demise of the Liberal Democrats, to a partly 8 MPs with hardly any heartlands and a leader who is a tad more socially conservative than his predecessors puts doubt on them attracting the socially liberal types. The Liberal Democrats are also struggling to stay politically relevant, and project an image of competence which will make it difficult for them to appeal to the socially conservative types, which was unlikely anyway. After all, if you're concerned about immigration and welfare you're hardly likely to vote LD. The Greens suffer from wasted vote syndrome, and so are unlikely to make massive dents in Labour's support either.
Then there is UKIP. UKIP are unlikely to attract the socially liberal, centre-left types who will mostly likely stay with Labour even in the event of a Corbyn win. But it's fairly obvious that UKIP will be aiming to attract the more socially conservative WWC.
Care to take that back?
UKIP faces several challenges in attempting to unsurp Labour as the second party in British politics. Firstly, is that in a large number of the seats they came second they were way behind the winning party. Secondly, the direction in which the party goes after this is still in debate. Are they essentially a right-wing Conservative party, who still predominately focuses on critiquing the EU, or do move in a direction of being a socially conservative party, which cares about inequality and standing up for those who are not getting a fair deal? This is the direction, that apparently Nuttal would like UKIP to go into. But with Farage in charge, I see UKIP continuing to focus their critique purely on the EU/immigration, especially given Farage's own conservative background. Particularly since that UKIP's second places are scattered across the country, which may make the way to go unclear. For example, the one region where UKIP recieved the most second places was actually not in Labour's heartlands, in the North. It was actually in the South East - with UKIP replacing the LDs as second-placed party in this region.
The second big challenge is being seen as a viable vote. Many smaller parties under FPTP have suffered from the idea that they are a 'wasted vote', and UKIP is one of them. Last night a PBer brought to my attention one poll that showed a third of voters would vote UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning, but I found a YouGov which showed similar results for the Green party too. Neither party, I suspect will actually poll 20% - 30% at GE because ultimately it isn't news that in an ideal world many would not vote Tory and Labour. People vote for the big two as a compromise because how FPTP reinforces the strength of the big two. UKIP's biggest challenge therefore is attempting to shed the idea to those in Labour heartlands (if they target those areas specfically) that they are not a wasted vote. UKIP then face two struggles: firstly, establishing a local government base which adds credibility to them being an alternative to Labour, and secondly the targeting of resources, and the improvement of ground-game - both of which were dire at the last GE. Right now, UKIP only control one council - Thanet - and no councils in North.
There is also the strange curiosity, that while many may sympathise with UKIP's message they may not actually vote for them. Even after bigot-gate, many WWC still voted Labour. When concern about immigration is at its most acute, UKIP are invisible from the political-stage, not profiting in terms of poll VI, and losing council elections. And there is of course the pattern, that many Labour supporters simply disillusioned with the party, rather than looking for other alternatives simply don't vote, which leads to seats like Stoke-On-Trent, where Tristam Hunt's turnout was reportedly only 19%! It's not exactly clear if this damages Labour, either. I saw that @JEO was talking about the prospect of the Conservative party attracting the WWC vote, but I think this is remote. If anything, the reason why UKIP have collected second places in the North, is because many WWC consider a vote for the Tories unpalatable, and that their brand is permanently damaged among them. The Tories have hardly done much to dissuade them from the idea, that they are a party for the rich - and indeed, now that the Tories have won an election without large support from many demographics, including the working class, ethnic minorities and under 45 women - I wouldn't be surprised if the party wasn't all to bothered with attracting these demographics anymore. Cameron is hardly a man of the people, and Osborne is an even worst candidate in terms of pitching to the WWC.
This is why Labour will come out of a Corbyn leadership badly bruised, damaged, and beaten, but not dead and buried.
Here's what to do about the housing problems in this country:
Set up a Royal Commission or similar to define the problems and come up with five plans to fix them. Not all problems will be fixed in every plan, and each will require a significant mindset shift amongst certain segments of the population.
These five plans are then put to the country via referendum (under AV, what else?), and the winning solution implemented in law and practice.
Whichever solution is chosen will be massively unpopular amongst certain segments of society, but it will at least be more democratic than the current mess of bodges.
Anyone wanting to implement this scheme can call it the Jessop Plan. I'm sure the original Josias Jessop and his father would thoroughly approve.
Furthermore, the contest has just gone on too bloody long; the extreme interpretation of what the outcome will mean - revolution or annihilation - is possibly in part to keep the story a little fresher week to week.
Though if you know political sites which don't engage in ridiculous hyperbole (in opinion pieces and commentary pieces), please do not tell me or anyone else where they are - such a precious and unique environment would need protection from the trampling force of the unwashed masses, it'd bring a tear to my eye to see something so beautiful and unique be destroyed.
1. The Corbyn Drama: can his momentum be reversed?
2. The Greek Drama: behind the masks are the actors laughing or crying?
3. The Chinese puzzle: will the party grip tighten or ease up as the market crumbles?
4. The EU referendum Drama: does anyone care a shit at the moment?
Again I ask, why does Cambridge need a Green Belt? Apparently there are very good reasons for it and yet you've not managed to say what they are.
2)Both - madness will do that.
3)Tighten. At first.
4)Not right now. I'm stuffed full of this Labour leadership meal, the EU referendum is a course too far at this moment in time.
Fair point that all political sites engage in hypberole, but reading posts it seemed as though people actually believed that hyperbole!
I have the opposite problem: I automatically shy away from extreme interpretations of, well, pretty much anything, but sometimes of course the correct answer is not in the middle of two extremes, it leans more one way or the other. Hence why I called the GE so wrong when it came to Labour and LD results.
For instance, a plan might call for all new inner-city housing to be high-rise and rental only. Or another might call for any new development over five houses to be council-owned. Or another might abolish all planning laws. And another might further tighten laws. Some plans might do several of the above, and lots of things I haven't thought of.
Whatever the plan is, it will upset people, companies and organisations. Then again, the current mess upsets people That is why it would need to be selected by a democratic referendum.
The problems need defining and the plans creating. That'd be the job of the Royal Commission.
(*) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=borken
Too many people are ridiculously attached to it, which is actually very patchy. There are plenty of cities where it does not even exist - Milton Keynes, Leicester, Peterborough, and all of those in Wales and Scotland - without noticeable problems.
It has become an inverse cargo cult driven by selfishness of privileged people.
If you add up all the 'protected' designations that prevent houses being built for people to live in, it is around 35% of England.
https://barneystringer.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-much-of-englands-countryside-is-protected/
Everything except Green Belt is based on the intrinsic quality of the land; GBs are on location, which includes a good area of poor quality land suitable for use.
Time sensibly to loosen this corset, methinks. Start with London and Oxford.
If they do need it, then we can just add more further out. There are any number of purposes for which countryside is set aside as 'no build' these days - eg Special Protection Areas for a whole variety of birds. These can be part of the new "Green Belt".
https://barneystringer.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/protected-land.png
This was why although their was universal agreement in vote-share the LDs would do shite, many thought FPTP would save them in terms of seat-share. And had South-West apocalypse not happened, this assumption would have been true.
I'd like to see a local right for rural communities to grow by 1% a year by newbuild. Careful muancing would be needed, but it would be a good move.
We have a large proportion of rural communities where even small developments are well nigh impossible. Here, for example, is Glynn Davies writing about his experience in a hamlet in Wales.
http://glyn-davies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-weird-workings-of-our-planning.html
We also need to dump the average £50k of social tax charges heaped on every new house, which is one of the key things responsible for creating poor quality housing in new developments.
Similarly, given that lots of people want to buy a semi-detached house with a garden (such as we managed to build lots of before all the ridiculous planning rules), why do you want to build property that people don't want?
Essentially it all comes down to freedom - if a person owns some land and wants to build a house on it, there should be a very good reason needed to stop him, and "because green belt" isn't it. One of your "plans" is right - stop trying to plan!
Being serious, there needs to be something to replace Labour, and for my reasons given I'm not convinced that's going to happen to just yet.
Your essay been flagged as Spam (?)
Wondering why.
Cambridge will only thrive if we have more housing. And I support more housing because the only way I could afford a house was because of this new development, and I don't want to deprive others of the same advantage. But that does not mean just building willy-nilly, or building houses with no thought to facilities or how they will become communities.
BTW, do you know how small Cambridge's green belts are? (there are actually two; an inner and an outer).
Besides, if you knew anything about Cambridge you'd know that the biggest barrier to sane development is the university. And when they do allow development, it is to their advantage (ref. NW Cambridge development).
As for why Cambridge needs a green belt, try starting here:
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/inner-green-belt-boundary-study-december-2012.pdf
Here's another argument that is an extension of yours: let's remove all building standards. Houses would be much cheaper if they didn't have to have indoor plumbing. How about no windows in houses: after all, they cost money. And steeper stairs would be cheaper as well. And why do we need fireproofing and insulation standards?
No?
If anything, I want to see better housing built, with better facilities. That's true whether the houses are street of luxury detached homes, blocks of flats or tower blocks. Ans sadly it costs more. But the long-term costs of not doing it are much greater.
But as I said: instead of coming up with ideas that solve your problems but cause other problems to get bigger, why not look at all the problems at once?
I do however think its a wise thing to at least try to synthesise down our opinions.
What I did think mildly amusing was that Mr Apocalypse seemed to be saying there would be no err... apocalypse. Unlike hunchman.
Unless immigration is reduced, the demand for housing is going to continue to outpace the number of houses built. Therefore prices will continue to rise.
http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2012/oct/architects-and-developers-condemn-£50k-tax-every-home-built-levy-fund-social-housing-a
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi-blogs/wp-content/blogs.dir/303/files/2014/03/cambridge1.jpg That's a 20 page pdf, I was hoping you could give me a good reason for the Green Belt but if you can't then just say and I'll stop asking.
What is the official name of this policy?
Just read the document. You might learn something. I'd give you other links, but you obviously cannot be bothered to challenge your limited knowledge.
Also you seem completely unable to tell the difference between planning permission and minimum building standards. One is what you can build and the other is where.
I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.
Just got back from the Andy Burnham event near Euston tonight.
A bit of class war creeping in with pledges to take on the 'Bullingdon Boys' etc
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/rd-strat-410.pdf
Yeah I'll just spend ages reading a document that you can't even quote a part of to support your argument.
Jeez I can't believe I just wasted half an hour arguing with you about this.
He'll be talking about 'section 106' which a developer and a council negotiate on the scale of the necessary bribe to get planning permission.
I can quote it; in fact, that would be very easy. But since you're just going to argue every single little point why should I bother? It's there if you want to learn something, or read Matt's link below.
The Green Belt in Cambridge is being developed on. Why should the small belt be built upon further when it is perfectly possible to build outside it?
However in principle given the windfall gain a landowner receives when their land is allocated for residential development as opposed to other uses, I don't see why a significant proportion of that shouldn't go to providing the roads, schools, and hospitals that the new development will require.
Or, no developer/landowner contribution, but they have to build all those things themselves, to the same standard as the public authorities would be required to do. That's already how it works in some areas.
Because she was young and quite pretty she got plucked out to sit on the stage behind AB for his speech.
Her dad turned round to me and said 'The funny thing is she is a die hard JC voter'
I wonder how much the disgust with the Tories in northern regions is a generational thing and younger voters will be more forgiving.
It was all vacuous nonsense about affordable housing, affordable public transport, regulating the privateate sector rental market etc etc.
Building regs are a separate argument - they're nothing to do with planning. Having touched on building regs a few times looking at home improvements though I'm fairly sure they could be substantially trimmed.
And again you seem to be missing the point/problem - why would anyone build a house with no indoor plumbing - who would buy it? We don't need to have endless regulations to stop people building houses no-one would want!
The problem is that housing is in short supply, so people struggle to afford the housing they want or need. The problem is caused by an artificial restriction in supply (planning controls). The problem could be fixed by allowing people more freedom to do as they like with their property.
Never misunderestimate George Osborne.
His main claim was the threat to the NHS. FFS that ship has long sailed no one believes them anymore given the amount of times they have called wolf.
Citation needed please, as I think that's wrong, especially given the number of dwellings per hectare of new developments.
As an aside for the general discussion, it should be remembered that labour and materials availability, as well as financing, are big barriers to new housing developments. It isn't just land availability and planning (I'll need to find a ref for that, but I believe it's right).
There is a shortage of bricks. Brick making capacity has been expanded by re-opening old factories.. but it takes time. There are also shortages of skilled labour.
He thinks the supply of housing has no effect on their price which contravenes the first and most important rule of economics.
He doesn't know the difference between planning permission and minimum buildings standards.
He thinks the cost of land is not important when it is one of the largest costs to builders, often the largest cost.
He claims to know loads of reasons why Cambridge needs a Green Belt, but he won't tell us what they are or why they are more important than people being able to afford their own home.
I'm pretty sure he has started from the position of not wanting the UK to build a lot of housing and has worked back from there.
Building regs are not a separate argument: it's all part of the cost of a house, and how many houses can be built.
There are sadly landlords for whom indoor plumbing is an option, especially in inner cities. Councils seem rather incapable of stopping them. Plenty of other regs also get routinely flouted, especially adequate insulation.
"The problem is caused by an artificial restriction in supply"
The problem is caused by many things, including an artificial demand in the form of investment and BTL housing. You cannot just look at one side of the problem.
(Remember Burnham signed off a letter to Prince Charles 'Your most humble and obediant servant' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111169/Andy-Burnham-Prince-Charles-humble-obedient-servant.html, he is not really a Corbyn style revolutionary)
At the various Business for Britain meetings I've been to there has been a real split of opinion.
Personally, I'm on the fence on the vote, not a 'No' voter. The current set up is just about in the UK's interest, but if things develop so that the Eurozone starts voting en bloc then we absolutely need protections from that. And if we can't get appropriate protections then we really are better off out.
We know people locally who said they like the Tories but their (dead) grandfather/mother would never forgive them. Many are dying out - former coalminers. When our result cam out (Staffs Moorlands), one said she was surprised the Tories found 20,000 to vote for them. I replied I was surprised there were 10,000 Labour supporters still alive. We have gone from a Marginal Labour seat in 1997 to a safe Tory seat in 2015.
Translation problems for the official Chinese state newspaper:
"Abandoned bisexual baby found in park in E China"
http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0824/c98649-8940753.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRPcssq-7Us
£50k per unit is about right as the average. It will be lower in eg Lancashire and higher in the South East. This is one of my professional areas.
The basic reason why it is so high is because we choose to fund the cost of all new infrastructure - roads, parks, GP surgeries, schools, open space - and affordable housing, out of the cost of new developments rather than out of Council Tax on the existing population. It is convenient politically because people who don't live there yet don't have votes.
Secton 106 agreements are *part* of it but also, for example, reasonably sized developments have to leave 10% of the space unbuilt on, and sell 10-50% of their houses at cost to Social Housing Providers. That means that part of the time your workforce are making revenue but no income, so that increases the required price of the other units.
This comes from some mix of :
1 - "Planning Gain" - the increase in value of land once it gets Planning Permission which can be by 10-200 times depending on the area (say agricultural land £6k an acre, house building land with PP £100-500k an acre might be typical. Much more in cities.),
2 - a consequent limit of the profit to the developers, and
3 - a reduction in the amount of money available to build the house.
There are hugely complex computo-models to try and work out a fair balance.
Which of the above it is claimed to come from will depend on the political view of the person making the statement.
This is the breakdown of the cost of a unit from a BBC documentary called "Business Boomers" last year:
The thread where I posted this on the E-Build Forum is here, which explains a little more :
http://www.ebuild.co.uk/topic/13846-breakdown-of-cost-of-a-house/
(Further post to follow)
And it's not artificial demand, it's just demand! BTL is still people living in the houses - if people were able to afford to buy a house (and wanted to) they wouldn't need to rent. Removing the artificial limits on supply would reduce the incentive to buy property as an investment, because you're stop the ever-increasing prices, but even if you didn't, who are you to say who's allowed to own property or what they can do with their property.
I left after Burnham's speech when Luciana Berger came on.
Of the handful of people I spoke to, virtually everyone was convinced that JC will win on the first round.
One person did say that 1 of them should stand down to maximise the anti JC vote.
I was able to counter with an 'Ah, under AV it doesn't matter if someone stands down.'
So, hat tip to TSE for all his helpful AV threads.
I'll ignore most of your other statements as they're rubbish.
However: when did I say: "the cost of land is not important?" I said it's a small part of the cost of a house. Here are some sums; say a hecatre of land with planning permission costs £1.5 million - not an unrealistic figure. A developer can fit 40 houses or more on that hectare (ISTR the latest part of my village to be built is 36 DPH). If a house selling for upwards of £200,000, then the land cost is under one fifth of the total sale price.
BTW, DPH includes roads, gardens etc.
In the case of Upper Cambourne, if I'm right and it's 36 DPH, and a hectare costs £2 million (being generous - the developers bought the land decades ago), then the land cost per dwelling is £55k. New houses are selling for £240-470k.
As for Cambridge green belt; read the documents. It's simple really. I could condense them, but you'd just argue the toss because you don't want to agree with them. If you want to know, educate yourself.
As for your last line, read what I've repeatedly written over my entire time on PB. I want more housing. But I want it to be good housing, and realise that just building housing does not cure many of the other problems facing housing, and in fact makes some worse.
(Edit: hope I've got my sums right: it's ages since I studied this!)
Its bright and breezy tomorrow
http://www.debtbombshell.com/