politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nineteen days to go and the betting moves back to Corbyn

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Evening all.
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

Hope you had a nice time! I couldn't make it - Mondays I travel up to the Midlands.

It was all a bit rubbish tbh. Keir Starmer kicked it off, then Prescott went on about Thatcher dismantling the welfare state etc.
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.

Anyone who has Keir Starmer supporting him/her would never get my vote ever.. .

MattW said:

(snip goood stuff)

Thanks. However I'd argue the funding of new schools and other facilities out of the cost of new houses (e.g. via S106) is the way to go. Otherwise they won't get built, as councils will always have other things to spend their money on. Why should not new home owners pay for facilities that will increase the value of their houses, and why should other council tax payers, who do not get an advantage, pay?

S106 is vital. If anything, it needs tightening.

BTW, I'm talking in hectares and you're using acres. Tat always leads to fun problems.
BTW2, one of your links does not work.

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

They all know how brilliant Osborne is. He overcame the disaster of crying at Thatcher's funeral, something which would have ended the careers of lesser politicians.

Crying at a funeral is as serious lapse in judgement, but not as serious as the way Cameron rolls his sleeves up.

No it is not a lapse in judgement, it shows the humanity of the man.

JosiasJessop said:

CopperSulphate said:

I'm sure Mr JJ is a nice chap, but he doesn't seem to understand much about housing.

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.

Well, I've helped build and demolish houses, if that counts.

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!)

So we can get the cost of the land down to £55k if we build high density housing and the land was bought a decade ago. Doesn't that strike you as problematic? £55k is still a massive amount of money for just the permission to build a home.

And what about a decent sized plot for someone buying the land today? Totally out of reach for 90% of people.

I had a browse of that document and it mostly talks about the views and character of the area, which is all well and good if you have a home. What about the poor sods who are completely priced out?

The nicest parts of Cambridge were built before planning permission was brought in after WW2.

SquareRoot said:

No it is not a lapse in judgement, it shows the humanity of the man.

I was joking, it was one of the stupid things Tim ranted about, along with sleeve rolling, how Cameron poured a pint, receding hair, etc.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT part 1:

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.

I don't think there will be a Labour annihilation either, but there's a reason d 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.

I agree that the contest has dragged on for too long. It should have been finished by June/July, really.

Fair point that all political sites engage in hypberole, but reading posts it seemed as though people actually believed that hyperbole!

Parties do, eventually, run their course.

That means one day the Conservative party will end as well

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.

One day the Conservatives will end.

But out of sheer bloody mindedness, not before UKIP....

They will all want to join the New fiscally dry socially liberal not obsessed by the gays or the EU Tory Party.

Is that schismatic from the "Dry but not obsessed with Europe and the Gays new Tory Party"?

Scrapheap and I really need to sort out the articles of association of our new party.

My daughter asked an interesting question tonight.

Which is longer ........a "microwave minute" or a "treadmill minute"

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

glw said:

JEO said:

This morning Burnham was being all New Labour, arguing that a candidate must have economic credibility. Then he's back to class warfare in the evening. Indecisive Andy indeed.

As I said yesterday, or maybe the day before that, Tories need not fear Burnham if his campaign is any indication.

What Burnham is trying to do is leave enough New Labour room to win floaters while keeping enough Old Labour meat to attract activists and the left. It is a difficult balancing act

Yes but look where it's getting him. Corbyn is going to win by all accounts and on first ballot by doing precisely the opposite.

I

Well in that case let Corbyn win, the voters were clearly going to pick the most leftwing candidate anyway, Burnham cannot outCorbyn Corbyn or outKendall Kendall he is offering Labour a middle way, if they reject it then at least the activists had a choice (and he has actually said Labour spent too much unlike Cooper)

glw said:

SquareRoot said:

No it is not a lapse in judgement, it shows the humanity of the man.

I was joking, it was one of the stupid things Tim ranted about, along with sleeve rolling, how Cameron poured a pint, receding hair, etc.

Yes but tim probably hasn't been touched by death in the family, when he is, it ought to shut him up because there's nothing funny about it I can tell you.

OK. Let me post some real numbers which may be useful for those on the outside.

My point is not that this is too much or too little, just that it exists and is a significant and complex element and that changing Planning Policy is not something columnists can do by shooting from the hip.

This is in a location where a new build house costs from say 80k for a 2 bed starter home or flat to £225k or so for a 4 bed detached with double garage.

I have just taken a project for about 130 houses through the "outline" stage of planning permission. Outline establishes the right to build houses on that piece of 10 acres of land, and in our case finalises the access road. Reports done range from Bat and Tree Surveys to Preliminary Drainage design (*) and Traffic Surveys and Ground Conditions drilling using 6m deep holes monitored for a month. About a dozen reports and consultants in all, and this process has taken 2 years so far (that is quick). The Council fee to process it was a non-returnable £20k-ish, which we do not get back if refused.

(*) You cannot have more runoff than came off the existing field, so that means a 2000sqm balancing pond and computer controlled outlet.

Detailed Stage will include the likes of actual layout of houses, designs, final drainage layout, road spec, type of bricks and tiles etc.

In this case it is 10% open space an 20% affordable (a low figure - 8 miles away it would be 35%).

The elements of our Planning Gain contribution include:

Funding 35 school places at Primary and Secondary School.
Green Travel Plan.
Open Space as Discussed.
20% Affordable Houses, according to local assessed need.
£250k contribution for refurb of local town centre.
200m of cycle track.
Lots of stuff like bat boxes and bird boxes, which cost more buggeration and time than money.

The direct cost will be something like a million with another million or two for loss of profit on the Affordable Houses / undeveloped space and opportunity cost.

To get detailed and complete the build will take perhaps another 5-7 years - which is why politicians saying they will build an extra 50k houses a year from scratch in 2 or 3 years is balls. They may pull some forward, but it will leave a hole in 5 years, and it is a huge reform to reduce the time of the process - requiring taking no the Nimby problem and real planning reform.

Anyone who has ploughed through that may enjoy this slightly rude but nearly non-sweary Eclectech animation to provide .. er .. relief.

http://www.eclectech.co.uk/pettingzoo.php

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

notme said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Evening all.
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

It worked really well last time, and the time before that. To be fair the dim witted activist base are so warped in prejudice that they'll lap it up. But it doesnt resonate outside of those who were going to not vote Tory anyway.

Forgot to ask, did he mention he was Northern?

@SebastianEPayne: Burnham promises to show "Mr Gideon George Osborne" what a "real northern powerhouse looks like" at the Dispatch Box #labourleadership

Why do people think it is clever to mention a name that Osborne changed as a teenager?

I mean, it really adds nothing to political discourse!

Because they are unable to challenge him on the policy stage, they revert to literal name-calling.

CopperSulphate said:

The nicest parts of Cambridge were built before planning permission was brought in after WW2.

To be fair, the nicest pieces of Cambridge were built a while before WW2

Moses_ said:

My daughter asked an interesting question tonight.

Which is longer ........a "microwave minute" or a "treadmill minute"

An Alex Ferguson stoppage time minute?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Moses_ said:

My daughter asked an interesting question tonight.

Which is longer ........a "microwave minute" or a "treadmill minute"

An Alex Ferguson stoppage time minute?

A London Underground "next train arrives in 1 min" minute?

Give me a minute Vasily, one minute only, please.

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Moses_ said:

My daughter asked an interesting question tonight.

Which is longer ........a "microwave minute" or a "treadmill minute"

An Alex Ferguson stoppage time minute?

A London Underground "next train arrives in 1 min" minute?

Give me a minute Vasily, one minute only, please.

"Give me a ping, Vashily, one ping only!"

ThreeQuidder said:

Moses_ said:

My daughter asked an interesting question tonight.

Which is longer ........a "microwave minute" or a "treadmill minute"

A Tube minute.

Snap

Moses_ said:

My daughter asked an interesting question tonight.

Which is longer ........a "microwave minute" or a "treadmill minute"

Ha! Depends when in the workout the treadmill minute is and whether you're listening to great music or not. My longest minutes have been on the rowing machine.

I may be reading too much into this, but these two data points seem to indicate that a Biden entry into the Dem nomination race, with Obama's endorsement, is becoming more likely:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/251805-white-house-wont-rule-out-obama-primary-endorsement

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/24/earnest_adding_biden_smartest_decision_obama_has_ever_made_in_politics_he_can_mount_a_successful_campaign.html

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

CopperSulphate said:

The nicest parts of Cambridge were built before planning permission was brought in after WW2.

To be fair, the nicest pieces of Cambridge were built a while before WW2

It's an odd argument. Old houses tend to be nicer because the buildings that survive are the 'nice' ones. The ones that are less favoured tend to get demolished over time because they are less valuable and replaced with more modern buildings, and the cycle continues.

For this reason, soon people will be talking more of how 'lovely' sixties tower blocks are to live in. Because the really bad ones will have been demolished, and the remaining ones renovated (sometimes to the degree of stripping down to steel frames, as happened to one in Bethnal Green in the 1990s).

Also, some of the nice houses can be a real pain to live in, as friends of mine can testify, especially wrt things like grockles gawking in and parking problems.

The grockles can be wearing on the carpet, that's true!

One of my friends can't live in his house because it's open to the public two months a year and it's a real disruption to family life.

isam said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

CopperSulphate said:

The nicest parts of Cambridge were built before planning permission was brought in after WW2.

To be fair, the nicest pieces of Cambridge were built a while before WW2

It's an odd argument. Old houses tend to be nicer because the buildings that survive are the 'nice' ones. The ones that are less favoured tend to get demolished over time because they are less valuable and replaced with more modern buildings, and the cycle continues.

For this reason, soon people will be talking more of how 'lovely' sixties tower blocks are to live in. Because the really bad ones will have been demolished, and the remaining ones renovated (sometimes to the degree of stripping down to steel frames, as happened to one in Bethnal Green in the 1990s).

Also, some of the nice houses can be a real pain to live in, as friends of mine can testify, especially wrt things like grockles gawking in and parking problems.

The grockles can be wearing on the carpet, that's true!

One of my friends can't live in his house because it's open to the public two months a year and it's a real disruption to family life.

I think your friend and yourself should look up the definition of humblebragging

New term for me. I like and will use.

Anybody got any idea what % of the so-called selectorate have already voted? I have the feeling now that any further clashes between the candidates are pretty much irrelevant, except in so far as they unsettle the party even further. I did like Matt's cartoon of the brick thrown through the Labour HQ window, with a note calling for unity attached.

isam said:

MTimT said:

isam said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

CopperSulphate said:

The nicest parts of Cambridge were built before planning permission was brought in after WW2.

To be fair, the nicest pieces of Cambridge were built a while before WW2

It's an odd argument. Old houses tend to be nicer because the buildings that survive are the 'nice' ones. The ones that are less favoured tend to get demolished over time because they are less valuable and replaced with more modern buildings, and the cycle continues.

For this reason, soon people will be talking more of how 'lovely' sixties tower blocks are to live in. Because the really bad ones will have been demolished, and the remaining ones renovated (sometimes to the degree of stripping down to steel frames, as happened to one in Bethnal Green in the 1990s).

Also, some of the nice houses can be a real pain to live in, as friends of mine can testify, especially wrt things like grockles gawking in and parking problems.

The grockles can be wearing on the carpet, that's true!

One of my friends can't live in his house because it's open to the public two months a year and it's a real disruption to family life.

I think your friend and yourself should look up the definition of humblebragging

New term for me. I like and will use.

'So forgetful!!!! Just buying some extra large condoms at the drug store and realised I left my wallet in the car! #dumbass'

The guy who coined the phrase a few years ago died of a drug overdose at a young age, Harris Wittels.

It's been scientifically proven to be a negative force!

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/05/how-to-brag/394136/

He missed a trick. It should have been 'a jumbo pack of extra large condoms'

I'm not convinced I've mastered humble bragging yet. Ironic wink.

stjohn said:

I'm not convinced I've mastered humble bragging yet. Ironic wink.

How about "We were stupid enough to buy a farm. It's costing us a bazillion to maintain, so now we're broke." ?