Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 5.8% increased CON GE17 vote share would’ve been a big dea

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 5.8% increased CON GE17 vote share would’ve been a big deal if only LAB hadn’t gone up 9.8%

It has started. Senior Tories at their conference in Manchester such as Liam Fox trying to gloss over TMay’s loss of majority on June 8th by arguing that the party increased its vote share by 5.8% at the general election.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,024
    2nd like Labour
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Second. Like Labour. But for how long is the question?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087
    That chart looks sub optimal for Tory prospects at the next election.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,277
    FPT;

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Extra 10bn on help to buy... apparently helping 130,000 people.
    Not sure guardian/Hammond has that figure right... that's more than 75k per purchase?

    Grr... What does he think a huge demand-side driver will do to prices in a supply-constrained market? Very short term thinking I’m afraid.
    I don't think that's right. It's a demand-side driver which favours one specific type of demand (first-time buyers). It is combined with other demand-side drivers which disadvantage buy-to-let and second-home buyers. So the net effect isn't necessarily to drive up prices overall.
    I think the main impact has been to artificially inflate the price (and stimulate the building) of 1/2 bed newbuild, high service charge, leasehold, flats.

    In a recession/house price deflation scenario, those properties would suffer the biggest % falls IMO.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited October 2
    Well, up to a point Lord Copper. Yes of course what matters most is the change is seats, and yes of course it's not great increasing your vote share by 5.8% if the other lot increase theirs by 9.8%. However, when you are analysing why you didn't do better, it's very relevant to ask whether the problem was voters abandoning you or whether it was, in part at least, the main opposition party hoovering up votes from those other parties. In addition, a reminder that the Conservative vote share went up is a useful antidote to the argument that the party is finished, can never get a majority again, etc etc.

    In any case, this is a party conference. Of course silver linings are being talked up.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 256
    ..and yet a lot of that percentage increase for Labour was Labour piling up votes (uselessly) in seats it already holds. Take that away, and the Labour increase is far less dramatic
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    FPT - not surprised on party membership.

    Who'd want to be a Conservative Party member? You have to pay £25 a year, you're not respected by CCHQ, you won't have an input on policy, you might not get to pick your parliamentary candidate, and you might not get to vote for the leader either.

    Yet you're subject to endless requests for money, leafleting, door-knocking and raffle tickets.

    Unless you want to socialise at bridge evenings with the elderly, or network the contacts to become a candidate, what's the point?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Well, up to a point Lord Copper. Yes of course what matters most is the change is seats, and yes of course it's not great increasing your vote share by 5.85 if the other lot increase theirs by 9.8%. However, when you are analysing why you didn't do better, it's very relevant to ask whether the problem was voters abandoning you or whether it was, in part at least, the main opposition party hoovering up votes from those other parties. In addition, a reminder that the Conservative vote share went up is a useful antidote to the argument that the party is finished, can never get a majority again, etc etc.

    In any case, this is a party conference. Of course silver linings are being talked up.

    Absolutely right. Obviously a bad election for TM but anyone who thinks this is the end of the Tory party is kidding themselves...

    I suspect neither Labour nor Tories will be able to get many more votes than previously - they will both be looking to squeeze votes out in key places and hold what they have...

    Scotland seems crucial to me - if SNP slide continues who will take those seats?. Similarly would a Lib Den recovery help or hurt Labour?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487

    Well, up to a point Lord Copper. Yes of course what matters most is the change is seats, and yes of course it's not great increasing your vote share by 5.85 if the other lot increase theirs by 9.8%. However, when you are analysing why you didn't do better, it's very relevant to ask whether the problem was voters abandoning you or whether it was, in part at least, the main opposition party hoovering up votes from those other parties. In addition, a reminder that the Conservative vote share went up is a useful antidote to the argument that the party is finished, can never get a majority again, etc etc.

    In any case, this is a party conference. Of course silver linings are being talked up.

    The fundamentals to me suggest we just had a (near) 1992 experience, and will get a 1997-lite one in five years. If I had to guess, I'd say ~80 Labour Gains from the Tories for a Corbyn majority of about 40. One would have to hope rebellions from moderates kept him in check.

    But, a huge amount could change in the next 4.5 years.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    tlg86 said:

    That chart looks sub optimal for Tory prospects at the next election.

    Not necessarily - look at the difference between 1974 (O) and 1979.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 676
    It's only relevant if representation is supposed to be proportional to votes.
    It is real chutzpah to vehemently resist moves to proportional representation while citing an increase in vote share as being anything other than academic interest.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    FPT - not surprised on party membership.

    Who'd want to be a Conservative Party member? You have to pay £25 a year, you're not respected by CCHQ, you won't have an input on policy, you might not get to pick your parliamentary candidate, and you might not get to vote for the leader either.

    Yet you're subject to endless requests for money, leafleting, door-knocking and raffle tickets.

    Unless you want to socialise at bridge evenings with the elderly, or network the contacts to become a candidate, what's the point?

    I told them I was working away, don’t get hassled about canvassing and fundraising socials any more. Even better, they know I can’t make donations with overseas money! ;)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,199
    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    Three related questions:

    1) Do the Conservatives think that they can get more votes next time? If so, from where?

    2) Do the Conservatives think that Labour can get more votes next time? If so, from where?

    3) Do the Conservatives think that Labour's appeal has peaked? If so, why?

    The Conservatives' big strategic problem is that it isn't easy to see how they can get more votes next time, given the challenges ahead. If they're losing votes, which seems much more likely, that would in all probability be to the benefit of Labour.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 11,617

    tlg86 said:

    That chart looks sub optimal for Tory prospects at the next election.

    Not necessarily - look at the difference between 1974 (O) and 1979.
    Between 1974 (O) and 1979 the opposition gained a large share.

    How does that help the Tories?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,021
    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    A good question.
    Housing isn't particularly a party political issue, and the success or failure of policy here will have a strong effect on perceptions of competence. This seems designed to fail.
  • calumcalum Posts: 2,696
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited October 2
    The profile of this mass shooter is very unusual.

    Former accountant, qualified pilot with no criminal record living in a retirement community. Then carefully plans a mass shooting by booking a room with perfect view and takes 8 guns and erects a platform within the room.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Interesting in the chart above that the Conservative share went down from 2010 to2015 disguised by the LD collapse and obtaining a majority. It is a fact I wasn't aware of, and even more remarkable given the SLab implosion.
    Seen through that prism, maybe the election result should not have been such a surprise.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,021

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    That might be the case - but any businesses which can't cope with the relatively modest moves in exchange rates we've seem over the last year or so would have been flirting with bankruptcy anyway.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited October 2

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Yet well-run BA, BE and Easy are all doing just fine. Bad management always blames external factors.

    CAA seem to be doing a very good job of getting people home. Attention should now turn to the many employees who have just been laid off. There’s plenty of jobs around for pilots and hosties (as Ryanair are discovering) but a lot of the back office people will find it much more difficult to sort themselves out.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063

    The profile of this mass shooter is very unusual.

    Former accountant, qualified pilot living in a retirement community. Then carefully plans a mass shooting by booking a room with perfect view and takes 8 guns and erects a platform within the room.

    Maybe he didn't like Country?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438

    Three related questions:

    1) Do the Conservatives think that they can get more votes next time? If so, from where?

    2) Do the Conservatives think that Labour can get more votes next time? If so, from where?

    3) Do the Conservatives think that Labour's appeal has peaked? If so, why?

    The Conservatives' big strategic problem is that it isn't easy to see how they can get more votes next time, given the challenges ahead. If they're losing votes, which seems much more likely, that would in all probability be to the benefit of Labour.

    Your three questions are easy to answer:

    1. Dunno
    2. Dunno
    3. Dunno

    Perhaps a more useful set of questions is: what can we do to nudge the answers towards Yes, No and Yes?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited October 2

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    Funnily enough the biggest problem cited this morning by an industry expert was terrorism. As rivals have shifted flights from Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and other destinations Monarch has been facing more competition on their traditional routes.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    calum said:
    Of course :lol:
  • eekeek Posts: 1,884

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
    Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    edited October 2
    dixiedean said:

    Interesting in the chart above that the Conservative share went down from 2010 to2015 disguised by the LD collapse and obtaining a majority. It is a fact I wasn't aware of, and even more remarkable given the SLab implosion.
    Seen through that prism, maybe the election result should not have been such a surprise.

    Share of the Con+Lab aggregate went down
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    Agree. And it is a matter of semantics who builds them, private or public, and what the ownership structure is. It needs to start now, or else there won't be many built before the next election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    The profile of this mass shooter is very unusual.

    Former accountant, qualified pilot with no criminal record living in a retirement community. Then carefully plans a mass shooting by booking a room with perfect view and takes 8 guns and erects a platform within the room.

    That’s a really weird one, both in profile and MO.

    The pilot’s licence means he will have a regular medical, so he’s not going to have a long history of depression, and the profile doesn’t suggest Islamic terrorism. Maybe just a man with a grudge against someone, ex-wife maybe?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    Agreed.

    I don't see why this isn't startlingly obvious.

    It must be being discussed in CAs with every MP up and down the land.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,812
    The GE was a disaster for the Tories, not because of any nebulous changes in voting percentages but because it made Jezza look like a winner. In politics that's gold dust. That alone will bring about some significant shift - there are always those who love to be allied to success. Add to that natural slippage and the Brexit joker, and things are looking bleak for the Tories.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 256

    Three related questions:

    1) Do the Conservatives think that they can get more votes next time? If so, from where?

    2) Do the Conservatives think that Labour can get more votes next time? If so, from where?

    3) Do the Conservatives think that Labour's appeal has peaked? If so, why?

    The Conservatives' big strategic problem is that it isn't easy to see how they can get more votes next time, given the challenges ahead. If they're losing votes, which seems much more likely, that would in all probability be to the benefit of Labour.

    Your three questions are easy to answer:

    1. Dunno
    2. Dunno
    3. Dunno

    Perhaps a more useful set of questions is: what can we do to nudge the answers towards Yes, No and Yes?
    The Conservatives can get more votes next time from the older people who abstained in 2017 because of May's attacks on older people. Also from people who did not rate Corbyn's chances in 2017 but next time in the classic self denying prophecy mode that politics often takes, will turn out to stop him. Brexit will be a fait accompli also next time so remainers will have less reason to vote Labour to stop a hard Brexit.

    I think the next election is very much for Labour to lose
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,650
    Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    calum said:
    Good humour from Ruth Davidson, need more of that in politicians!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Sandpit said:

    The profile of this mass shooter is very unusual.

    Former accountant, qualified pilot with no criminal record living in a retirement community. Then carefully plans a mass shooting by booking a room with perfect view and takes 8 guns and erects a platform within the room.

    That’s a really weird one, both in profile and MO.

    The pilot’s licence means he will have a regular medical, so he’s not going to have a long history of depression, and the profile doesn’t suggest Islamic terrorism. Maybe just a man with a grudge against someone, ex-wife maybe?
    Easier ways to bump off an ex wife one would have thought.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    The GE was a disaster for the Tories, not because of any nebulous changes in voting percentages but because it made Jezza look like a winner. In politics that's gold dust. That alone will bring about some significant shift - there are always those who love to be allied to success. Add to that natural slippage and the Brexit joker, and things are looking bleak for the Tories.

    How did losing make him look like a winner?

    All it did was cement his position as leader of his party.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    eek said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
    Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
    Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,855
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    Agreed.

    I don't see why this isn't startlingly obvious.

    It must be being discussed in CAs with every MP up and down the land.
    As is so often the case, perhaps we should look across the water to the Continent to find some answers. In Holland, particularly in the new reclaimed areas, houses are not generally built by developers. The local authority designates an area of land for building with all the necessary permissions. They then pay someone to come in and put in all the infrastructure - roads, sewerage and services. The plots of land which are in various sizes are then sold to individual buyers who have a list of up to 20 different styles of house they are allowed to build depending on their needs and budget. They hire a building firm who will generally have the house built within a month.

    The system works. It is quick, efficient and gets the land used very quickly. It stops developers sitting on land and removes the long lag between the purchase of the land and the householder moving in. Of course it also allows for the local authority to pay a building firm to build social housing which they retain control of based on their needs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited October 2
    dr_spyn said:

    Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

    Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.

    This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because ;)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,159
    edited October 2

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 301
    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    The Scottish Government could certainly do that - it will be interesting to see if they do.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines#Business_trends
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 954
    stevef said:

    ..and yet a lot of that percentage increase for Labour was Labour piling up votes (uselessly) in seats it already holds. Take that away, and the Labour increase is far less dramatic

    Yes and that a lot of the Labour vote didn't think Labour could win so it was a protest vote. And that it was an exceptionally bad campaign. And students voted Labour, so that doesn't count. And a lot of Labour voters are a bit scruffy, so you can't really count their vote. So all in all it was rather good for the Conservatives.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    The government already has a very large landbank. It is the largest single landbank owner, I believe.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,159

    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines#Business_trends
    Quite. It was gaining passengers for years up from 5.3m in 2005 to 7.0m in 2014 and has only lost passengers in the last two years.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    The government already has a very large landbank. It is the largest single landbank owner, I believe.
    Even easier then.

    They can skip to steps 2 and 3.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,855
    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    Between 2014 and 2015 Monarch's passenger numbers fell 20%. That was not due to Brexit. Such drops are unsustainable for an airline.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    Updates numbers, Over 400 taken to hospital....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    The government already has a very large landbank. It is the largest single landbank owner, I believe.
    Yup. National Rail have huge amounts of spare brownfield land too, often sites that are conveniently located for stations.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    The government already has a very large landbank. It is the largest single landbank owner, I believe.
    Then they should build. Build build build like their lives depended on it.

    Because they do.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines#Business_trends
    Quite. It was gaining passengers for years up from 5.3m in 2005 to 7.0m in 2014 and has only lost passengers in the last two years.
    2015 was before the referendum
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    Barnesian said:

    Then they should build. Build build build like their lives depended on it.

    Because they do.

    Trouble is the Tory party is full of BANANAs who do not want house prices to fall.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    edited October 2
    Mortimer said:

    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    The government already has a very large landbank. It is the largest single landbank owner, I believe.
    Even easier then.

    They can skip to steps 2 and 3.
    Step 2 means confronting local BANANAs. Often they will be natural Tory voters with Tory councils. Just because it would be difficult, though does not mean it doesn't need doing.
    Edit. See glw has made the same point.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    Agreed.

    I don't see why this isn't startlingly obvious.

    It must be being discussed in CAs with every MP up and down the land.
    As is so often the case, perhaps we should look across the water to the Continent to find some answers. In Holland, particularly in the new reclaimed areas, houses are not generally built by developers. The local authority designates an area of land for building with all the necessary permissions. They then pay someone to come in and put in all the infrastructure - roads, sewerage and services. The plots of land which are in various sizes are then sold to individual buyers who have a list of up to 20 different styles of house they are allowed to build depending on their needs and budget. They hire a building firm who will generally have the house built within a month.

    The system works. It is quick, efficient and gets the land used very quickly. It stops developers sitting on land and removes the long lag between the purchase of the land and the householder moving in. Of course it also allows for the local authority to pay a building firm to build social housing which they retain control of based on their needs.
    Great for MC families with significant disposable income.

    Though in this country those people largely have homes.

    We need to build a load of terraces. Or decent tenement style housing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited October 2

    Updates numbers, Over 400 taken to hospital....

    “At Least” eight guns found in his hotel room - police source. :o

    Even the Telegraph have finally dropped Boris from the top of the front page.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407

    Then they should build. Build build build like their lives depended on it.

    Because they do.

    No they do not. For some of them their jobs as MPs depend on it, but if the Tories lose next time, nobody will be executed. Not even Labour is advocating death-squads...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,199

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines#Business_trends
    Quite. It was gaining passengers for years up from 5.3m in 2005 to 7.0m in 2014 and has only lost passengers in the last two years.
    2015 was before the referendum
    OK, so the fall in the pound meaning their dollar denominated purchases cost more had no effect?
  • sladeslade Posts: 488
    What a terrible day! Woke up feeling poorly and heard the news from Spain and Las Vegas. Then Monarch. I had a booking from Manchester to Alicante for two weeks today. So I have spent the morning cancelling airport car parking, car hire etc. Spoke to my credit card provider who were very helpful and agreed to refund the flight costs. Then decided to go out but found the car had a flat battery - now waiting for Skoda Assistance to arrive. I wonder what my horoscope was for the day.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,855
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ten more billion from the magic money tree for help to buy. Why not spend that instead on building some more houses?

    Lord knows. I can't understand it.

    The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.

    There has to be a material impact before the next election.
    Agreed.

    I don't see why this isn't startlingly obvious.

    It must be being discussed in CAs with every MP up and down the land.
    As is so often the case, perhaps we should look across the water to the Continent to find some answers. In Holland, particularly in the new reclaimed areas, houses are not generally built by developers. The local authority designates an area of land for building with all the necessary permissions. They then pay someone to come in and put in all the infrastructure - roads, sewerage and services. The plots of land which are in various sizes are then sold to individual buyers who have a list of up to 20 different styles of house they are allowed to build depending on their needs and budget. They hire a building firm who will generally have the house built within a month.

    The system works. It is quick, efficient and gets the land used very quickly. It stops developers sitting on land and removes the long lag between the purchase of the land and the householder moving in. Of course it also allows for the local authority to pay a building firm to build social housing which they retain control of based on their needs.
    Great for MC families with significant disposable income.

    Though in this country those people largely have homes.

    We need to build a load of terraces. Or decent tenement style housing.
    Well it works well in Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Nor does it need significant disposable income. The mortgage companies release money in a staged manner exactly as they do in this country if you are doing a self build.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines#Business_trends
    Quite. It was gaining passengers for years up from 5.3m in 2005 to 7.0m in 2014 and has only lost passengers in the last two years.
    2015 was before the referendum
    OK, so the fall in the pound meaning their dollar denominated purchases cost more had no effect?
    The loss in 2015 was 8.6%
    The loss in 2016 was only 5%
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    Would like to see more politicians try this - makes the protestors look stupid:

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited October 2
    Kudos to Jacob Rees-Mogg, his handling of a ranting protestor looks to have been masterly:

    Edit: I see @rkrkrk got there first
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    I’m usually the first person to have a go at overpaid quangocrats for being slow and unresponsive even when there’s a crisis, but seriously well done to the UK Civil Aviation Authority for getting 20 planes chartered almost overnight to get people home after the Monarch collapse.

    A great effort from the organisation that most pilots usually refer to as the Campaign Against Aviation due to their legendary bureaucracy.

    https://monarch.caa.co.uk
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,199

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
    Usual well argued response form you. So, buying dollar denominated fuel when the pound has dropped wasn't a factor?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063

    Kudos to Jacob Rees-Mogg, his handling of a ranting protestor looks to have been masterly:


    Hmmm.... So that's why TSE isn't around today!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340

    Well, up to a point Lord Copper. Yes of course what matters most is the change is seats, and yes of course it's not great increasing your vote share by 5.8% if the other lot increase theirs by 9.8%. However, when you are analysing why you didn't do better, it's very relevant to ask whether the problem was voters abandoning you or whether it was, in part at least, the main opposition party hoovering up votes from those other parties. In addition, a reminder that the Conservative vote share went up is a useful antidote to the argument that the party is finished, can never get a majority again, etc etc.

    In any case, this is a party conference. Of course silver linings are being talked up.

    Spot on.

    (Apart from your first point: what really matters most is who ends up in office).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    rkrkrk said:

    Would like to see more politicians try this - makes the protestors look stupid:

    twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/914834212234113024/photo/1

    Reminds me of the scenes of the mob at evergreen state university who have been trying to get an academic sacked .
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
    Usual well argued response form you. So, buying dollar denominated fuel when the pound has dropped wasn't a factor?
    Their loss in passngers in 2015 was greater than 2016.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited October 2
    rkrkrk said:

    Would like to see more politicians try this - makes the protestors look stupid:

    ttps://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/914834212234113024/photo/1

    LOL, that’s awesome! Well done Jacob :D Kill them with kindness.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Kudos to Jacob Rees-Mogg, his handling of a ranting protestor looks to have been masterly:

    Edit: I see @rkrkrk got there first

    Two agreements on the same thread!
    You'll be endorsing Corbyn next ;)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087
    rkrkrk said:

    Would like to see more politicians try this - makes the protestors look stupid:

    To be fair to the protester, the PM's employment is precarious.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    rkrkrk said:

    Kudos to Jacob Rees-Mogg, his handling of a ranting protestor looks to have been masterly:

    Edit: I see @rkrkrk got there first

    Two agreements on the same thread!
    You'll be endorsing Corbyn next ;)
    Probably not!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377
    @DixieDean - Quite agree.

    If the gov't is going to intervene in the housing market, surely a better route is to take measures that put more bricks and mortar on the ground rather than blowing up the baloon so to speak.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    Pulpstar said:

    @DixieDean - Quite agree.

    If the gov't is going to intervene in the housing market, surely a better route is to take measures that put more bricks and mortar on the ground rather than blowing up the baloon so to speak.

    Help to Buy has helped increase the number of houses being built:

    http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/news/view/housing-pipeline-help-to-buy-q2-2017/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    Are we sure the moron wasn't a plant to launch JRM leadership campaign? Surely nobody has such inability to form an argument!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
    Usual well argued response form you. So, buying dollar denominated fuel when the pound has dropped wasn't a factor?
    I'm guessing when your largest consumable is bought in a foreign currency you'd be advised to hedge that a little....

    Seriously, I don't know anyone who has ever flown monarch. Are they a northern phenomenon?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

    Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.

    This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because ;)
    I wrote an article on this a while ago:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/12/22/test-11/

    The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    Mortimer said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
    Usual well argued response form you. So, buying dollar denominated fuel when the pound has dropped wasn't a factor?
    I'm guessing when your largest consumable is bought in a foreign currency you'd be advised to hedge that a little....

    Seriously, I don't know anyone who has ever flown monarch. Are they a northern phenomenon?

    I have once. Put it this way, Ryanair are preferable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    Are we sure the moron wasn't a plant to launch JRM leadership campaign? Surely nobody has such inability to form an argument!

    Remember that these are the same people who thought that hanging two effigies from a bridge alongside a huge sign saying “Hang the Tories” was fair political comment.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,855

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
    "In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines#Business_trends
    Quite. It was gaining passengers for years up from 5.3m in 2005 to 7.0m in 2014 and has only lost passengers in the last two years.
    2015 was before the referendum
    OK, so the fall in the pound meaning their dollar denominated purchases cost more had no effect?
    Given that the problems they had with collapsing passenger numbers were all prior to the drop in the value of the pound and that their financial losses in percentage terms were greater prior to the Brexit vote than after it I would suggest you are talking out of your backside yet again.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    Mortimer said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
    Usual well argued response form you. So, buying dollar denominated fuel when the pound has dropped wasn't a factor?
    I'm guessing when your largest consumable is bought in a foreign currency you'd be advised to hedge that a little....

    Seriously, I don't know anyone who has ever flown monarch. Are they a northern phenomenon?
    HQ is, or rather was, Luton.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340
    dr_spyn said:

    Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

    That's not necessarily the case. Some amendments have gone through ratification very quickly. It all depends on the mood of the nation.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340
    eek said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
    Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
    I did that route when we went on a Northern Lights-seeking holiday in 2013.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377
    Mortimer said:

    Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722

    Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason. They had to bailed out several times already.
    Usual well argued response form you. So, buying dollar denominated fuel when the pound has dropped wasn't a factor?
    I'm guessing when your largest consumable is bought in a foreign currency you'd be advised to hedge that a little....

    Seriously, I don't know anyone who has ever flown monarch. Are they a northern phenomenon?
    Last year, Monarch carried 6.3 million passengers to 40 destinations from Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Manchester airports.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    Sandpit said:

    Are we sure the moron wasn't a plant to launch JRM leadership campaign? Surely nobody has such inability to form an argument!

    Remember that these are the same people who thought that hanging two effigies from a bridge alongside a huge sign saying “Hang the Tories” was fair political comment.
    It is very similar to those videos of students losing their shit with academics. The one at Harvard was another where the young lady couldn't form any sort of argument, simply screaming loudly appeared to be what she thought was a persuasive approach.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    rkrkrk said:

    Kudos to Jacob Rees-Mogg, his handling of a ranting protestor looks to have been masterly:

    Edit: I see @rkrkrk got there first

    Two agreements on the same thread!
    You'll be endorsing Corbyn next ;)
    Probably not!
    Well we can agree on that too!
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 5,568
    rkrkrk said:

    Would like to see more politicians try this - makes the protestors look stupid:

    JRM handled that pretty well.

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,242

    FPT - not surprised on party membership.

    Who'd want to be a Conservative Party member? You have to pay £25 a year, you're not respected by CCHQ, you won't have an input on policy, you might not get to pick your parliamentary candidate, and you might not get to vote for the leader either.

    Yet you're subject to endless requests for money, leafleting, door-knocking and raffle tickets.

    Unless you want to socialise at bridge evenings with the elderly, or network the contacts to become a candidate, what's the point?

    And on top of that, the policy put by the leadership is not in the best interests of the ordinary Conservative voter.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    Doughnut donny is going to address the nation in next couple of hours.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

    Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.

    This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because ;)
    I wrote an article on this a while ago:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/12/22/test-11/

    The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
    A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.

    This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
This discussion has been closed.