politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Mr Corbyn could end Cameron’s Premiership

MaxPB said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"Will Blairites cross floor to Osborne?" Robert Peston asks.

Well I'll believe it when I see it, but what a coup it would be.

Tory/Lab defections to each other are as rare as hen's teeth.

I wouldn't expect them immediately, but if Corbyn starts threatening deselection and what not then I could see some crossers.

Also, especially Blairites in marginal seats.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"Will Blairites cross floor to Osborne?" Robert Peston asks.

Well I'll believe it when I see it, but what a coup it would be.

Tory/Lab defections to each other are as rare as hen's teeth.

I really don't think so. It requires a lot of balls. Then you have all the tribalism that goes with Labour too.

Those Labour MPs that do and could prefer to stay in their own party. Gisela Stuart, for instance, looks a perfect defector. But I don't think she will.

She loves being the right-wing grit in Labour's oyster, and roughing things up a bit.

MaxPB said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"Will Blairites cross floor to Osborne?" Robert Peston asks.

Well I'll believe it when I see it, but what a coup it would be.

Tory/Lab defections to each other are as rare as hen's teeth.

I wouldn't expect them immediately, but if Corbyn starts threatening deselection and what not then I could see some crossers.

If you're a moderate in a marginal and are threatened with deselection then you must start to wonder what you have to lose by crossing over.

HERE WE GO.

MattW said:

flightpath01 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MattW said:

JonathanD said:

stodge said:

to live in a camp for months, if not years, with no prospects, would seem like purgatory. The camps can and must be a temporary solution not a permanent home for the Syrian Diaspora.

You are quite right that living in one of those camps must be miserable - the very first thing that needs to be sorted is to ensure that they are fully and well funded by the international community. The 'hard headed realists' must not lose compassion for the very real suffering these Syrian refugees are enduring.

However, given there are 3 or 4 million displaced Syrians and no country has that many empty houses, wherever they are moved to, they will be living in camps for quite some time. Better to focus money and effort on improving their lives where they are rather than wasting it in transport costs.

Spain. 3.4 million.
Germany. 1.8 million.
France + Italy 2m plus each.
Ireland 400k.
UK 700k.
Portugal 700k.
Still better to keep them in secure camps in region, however.
Unusually for the G, I believe those numbers roughly.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice?CMP=fb_gu
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/23/1393176517114/unnamed.png?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=14e0b9b449bc43280ed7d587db69d38f

The issue with this is that in the UK at least, most empty homes are likely to be in areas with very high unemployment so if you put refugees in them they would struggle to find a job.

The issue of empty homes is a red herring. Given Spanish levels of unemployment - just what benefit would a million migrants bring to them?
These mass movements of people are far from the normal movements between countries and the movements up to now within the EU. They are illegal and unregulated and it must be quite clear to even the thickest lefty moron living in their cloud cuckoo land that any accession to this movement will result in greater tragedies all round.

Hmmm.

A large number of billions coming to be spent in Spain every year would have no effect? I don't see that.

If you want to see the costs involved, consider that Frau Merkel has budgeted - what was it - 5+bn Euro for the first 800,000?

Frau Merkel has almost certainly under-estimated the costs. 5 bn Euros for 800 000 people works out at 6250 Euros per person - or approximately £4500. I find it hard to accept that this will be an adequate sum to cover such things as housing, food, fuel, medical help, education, language course, training etc etc, even for the first year.

Cyclefree said:

Agreed. The Tories are being too complacent on this. They seem to be assuming that simply reheating a version of what they did in the 1980s will work. And I don't think that's enough. It's an open goal for Labour and it is interesting that Corbyn has mentioned it because that will resonate with people - even if his solutions are not the right ones.

Sometimes reading about housing on this site one would be left with the impression that there is very little house building going on. Well, perhaps in some areas there isn't but in the South East we are going through the biggest house building boom in my lifetime. Houses, flats estate even whole new towns are being built as fast as you can say, "Jerrybuilt slums of the future". For land that has previously been ruled off-limits for building because of ground conditions (e.g. liability to flooding) or other reasons planning permission can now be gained despite any objections of local councils.

Talking to one developer I was told that the only thing holding back even more building is the shortage of skilled tradesmen. Indeed I have been trying to find a competent firm of brickies to do some work for me before winter sets in and nobody is available.

Where are all these people to occupy all these new dwellings coming from? And we are talking about a lot of people - one development is of 10,000 dwellings. Some of course are because of the natural consequences of a population living longer and living in smaller family units. The majority though seems to be from people moving in from the cities where they have been replaced by who? As someone up-thread said you cannot increase the population by the the equivalent of a city the size of Cardiff every year and not have some knock-on consequences.

Infrastructure is the other big problem. Yes there are obligations that can be laid on developers with regard to things like GP surgeries and even junior schools, but there are no new roads being built, no new railways (building a new commuter town and then expect its occupants to travel using the existing network is not going to end well), no new hospitals (even though the ones we have are struggling to cope), then there is water, sewage, civic amenities etc. etc..

These problems are not limited to Sussex of course, they exist throughout the Home Counties. Merely saying the Government needs to do something to encourage more housebuilding is a very poor prescription to solving the real problem of rapid and large population increase.

Corbyn rambling and making a speech about himself and his election. Had the honourable gentleman got a question?

Not really a question more of speech.

Ohh - top button done up!

Has someone told Jezza he's supposed to ask questions?

oooooooooh

he's good so far.

Duplicitous sh1t.

Are we going to get a question?

Is that a kipper tie?

Richard_Nabavi said:

The problem with a 'Michael Howard' scenario for Labour is that it requires near-unanimity amongst the PLP. Even if we assume that Corbyn could be intimidated into resigning and a Howard-like alternative agreed on by the grandees, it would only take one significant figure to throw his or her hat into the ring as an alternative candidate in order to trigger another full-scale leadership election. The only requirement would be to get 35 nominations, which is not a very high bar. Judging by the intensity of the acrimony and civil war raging at the moment, near-unanimity looks a bit unlikely, to put it mildly. And as soon as there were two candidates, others would follow. The fun would begin all over again.

Labour MPs 'sack' Corbyn and/or Corbyn gives up - well what 7 different kinds of numpties does that make of all the people who voted for him? Will they like that? What umpteen kinds of useless idiots does that make the 3 bozos who could not come close to beating him? What does it all say about the true inner desires of labour activists?

What words have we had from Corbyn? I can't watch at work

Cam's face is nearly as brown as Jezza's suit.

Erm...this format means if there is no follow up by Corbyn thinking on his feet, this just becomes an opportunity for Cameron to give a PPP....

TheWhiteRabbit said:

What words have we had from Corbyn? I can't watch at work

straight bat on housing

no bonkers buzzwords. Yet.

It feels a bit like Ed conference speech, I spoke to Gareth in Hampstead etc...

Is he saying that rents are too high, or rents are too low?

Good description.

Dair said:

Hmm, it's more like a radio phone in.

Actually, credit where credit is due, Corbyn is doing ok so far.

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

Better than Ed.

No, he's not. Ed was often quite good at PMQs: making Cameron angry.

Corbyn is just a bit boring. This is, again, too easy for Dave. So far.

anything other than him bringing the red flag into the chamber is counted as a success.

He is calm, focused and very well prepped (even if he seems to be reading a lot from his notes, and it shows).

Good line from Dave to SNP heckling: "Hold on, I thought this was the new question time?"

LOL at Cameron dealing with Labour hecklers.

What Corbyn is doing is admirable, and what he has obviously always wanted from PMQs.

But it's going to be very dull if this continues, and actually makes Cameron look better because it means no Flashman/Punch & Judy and stock answers with tractor stats.

And to echo the comment below, yes, it does feel like a R5 phone in.

Good from Corbyn but makes it so easy for Cameron to play with a straight bat and reel off a long stream of policies and achievements. This approach makes both of them look good but makes it too easy for Cameron.

Cyclefree said:

MikeK said:

Well they caught one. How many others are there?

Abraham ben Jacob ‏@coinabs 5h5 hours ago
#ISIS #terrorist behind #massacre of 21 tourists at #Tunisian museum arrested in Italy, arriving on ‘#refugee’ boat

This is why the current migration issue is so toxic. There is no reliable way of distinguishing between Assad thugs, other thugs, Islamist trained jihadis, actual jihadis, people who will become jihadis and ordinary people who want to live ordinary lives and who would be a credit to any society. Particularly not where documents have been destroyed, people will say whatever it takes to get to where they want to be and there are no reliable authorities in the places they've left where matters can be checked.

So if you let them all in - the German option - you put security at risk; if you let no-one in, you risk being shouted at by Roger et al; if you let some in from camps over time (the Cameron option) you can, with luck, do the necessary intelligence and choose the most deserving but this option does not deal with all the masses collecting elsewhere nor with those moving to the UK from other EU countries.

And this is all before you deal with the issues involved with integrating large numbers of people from very different cultures. Migrants are not just people who can do the work needed. They are people with cultures and values and opinions and world views and they bring those with them, as well as their skills. Countries in Europe are far too sanguine about the very real challenges of integrating people in a sustainable way.

What?? Are you actually serious - Assad's brilliant new strategy for winning back his country is to open up a new front against Western Europe with secret immigrant thugs? I've heard it all now.

You display a lot of passion on this issue but your steadfast refusal to look beyond the word 'Muslim' in any way shape or form prevents your posts offering any valuable insight.

Bob__Sykes said:

What Corbyn is doing is admirable, and what he has obviously always wanted from PMQs.

But it's going to be very dull if this continues, and actually makes Cameron look better because it means no Flashman/Punch & Judy and stock answers with tractor stats.

And to echo the comment below, yes, it does feel like a R5 phone in.

This is the problem for Labour, Corbyn is making Cameron look more like a reasonable leader and that won't get any headlines or policy reversals from the government.

Will any backbenchers get to ask any questions today......?

Feels like a warm-up rather than the real game.

DavidL said:

Osborne's face is a picture. He cannot believe what he is seeing.

Osborne seems to either be doing some sort of mediation or zoning out through his thousand-yard stare.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

Better than Ed.

No, he's not. Ed was often quite good at PMQs: making Cameron angry.

Corbyn is just a bit boring. This is, again, too easy for Dave. So far.

I think boring is not the worst for Corbyn on day one. You know, par, rather than birdies or bogies.

I agree. Boring is considerably more than most people would have expected.

JonathanD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

david_herdson said:

It's not an open goal because while there is clearly a problem, there is far less clearly any easy solution.

Indeed so. In addition to the points you mention, there's also the very practical problem that the housebuilding industry is already working flat out. There simply isn't any spare capacity at the moment; they are constrained by shortage of skilled labour and even shortage of materials including bricks. Increasing the supply of housing is going to take time.

Construction has too much of a cyclical nature. This happens every time there is a recession and then recovery, with skilled labour and material being in shortage once recovery begins. There must be a case for having the house building industry as a special case and having government support for the housing industry during recessions. It would need to be carefully controlled and defined however.

It's the old shovel-ready approach: during the good times design and plan projects that are then paused at an early stage, ready for a time when there is excess capacity for them to be done.

They are fairly costly though, and most of the time if the project is worth doing, it's worth doing earlier rather than later.

the trouble with repeating questions from non-politicians is that they are...not politicians. And however well-meaning and genuine, they are easy to bat away by any actual politician (to say nothing of the PM).

Cam is having an easy time of it plus Corbyn is on a lose-lose situation.

Lose because he doesn't trouble Cam...lose because he is not taking the fight to Cam as a firebrand which is presumably what all the £3-ers paid their money to see.

So maybe Corbyn giving way for other Labour front benchers isn't such a bad idea after all.

SeanT said:

Better from Corbyn. But this is dreary.

I think that's his intention.

He has, quite effectively, avoided any direct attack on him, his record, his anthem singing, his fringe associations. He's defused the possibility of attack from Cameron.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dislike asking questions others have sent in. Reduces Leader of the Opposition to reading out e-mails.

Low key. Slightly odd. Initial speech was over long, but quieter than usual [from memory].

I'm not able to watch this live. It sounds like Corbyn's presenting the kind of TV/radio phone-in we used to get in days gone by. Is that close?

Way too easy. This is not holding the PM to account.

Dave tying everything back to the economy. That will be the running theme.

PMQs was an improvement.

"The Isle of Wight Zoo is having trouble importing a tiger.."

WTF?

TheScreamingEagles said:

For years people complained they wanted less Punch and Judy at PMQs.

No we've got it, they say it is boring.

Not surprising PBers find it boring, punch-and-judy was always good for anoraks. And those in the Chamber.