|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 16, 2021 9:18:49 GMT
LD Gain is still well under 50% of CON Hold!
|
|
|
Post by seanryanj on Jun 16, 2021 9:25:40 GMT
If (and very big if) Tories lost here I wonder would they evaluate their policies of tending to the red wall gains?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 16, 2021 9:35:01 GMT
If (and very big if) Tories lost here I wonder would they evaluate their policies of tending to the red wall gains? I hope not. We must run with the current and tend to our core demographic which has morphed away from trendy, effete, middle class Remainer tossers to real people.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 16, 2021 9:36:44 GMT
If (and very big if) Tories lost here I wonder would they evaluate their policies of tending to the red wall gains? I think Planning quotas in the Shires may well change for the second time, even if it is just close..
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 16, 2021 9:38:25 GMT
LD Gain is still well under 50% of CON Hold! "Well under 50%" does seem like a dodgy barchart...
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 16, 2021 9:50:23 GMT
LD Gain is still well under 50% of CON Hold! "Well under 50%" does seem like a dodgy barchart... Then you should like it all the more. And true in substance and in fact.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,804
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 16, 2021 10:25:02 GMT
Have the betting odds on this one moved at all?
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,235
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 16, 2021 10:27:36 GMT
Have the betting odds on this one moved at all? Tightening a bit, but still generous odds on a LD victory. Ladbrokes are offering Con 1/14 LD 7/1.
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 16, 2021 10:37:59 GMT
LD Gain is still well under 50% of CON Hold! So it should be. I'd guess that the state of play is LD about 1% behind, give or take a margin of error. People who like normal distribution graphs will probably tell you that translates to a 20% chance of the LDs winning and 50/50 chance that they'll finish 1% behind or more. Your expectation should be that the Tories will probably hold it narrowly, but there's a chance of the LDs squeaking over the line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 11:09:39 GMT
If (and very big if) Tories lost here I wonder would they evaluate their policies of tending to the red wall gains? As the Lib Dem gains in Richmond in 2016 and Brecon in 2019, and the close call in Bromley way back in 2006 or indeed the Conservative gain in Copeland in 2017 all show, it's not necessarily wise for anyone to extrapolate from by-elections. Certainly knee-jerk changes in policy because of one would be unwarranted in my view. Though I do think the Lib Dems are now in danger of doing what I predicted weeks ago, setting up what would look like a bit of disappointment if they now don't gain the seat. That's the way the commentary has started to drift. 'Seat at risk'. A narrow hold by the government would now probably be received by relief by the Tory Party, less excitement by the media, and forgotten by the wider electorate.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 16, 2021 11:17:27 GMT
If (and very big if) Tories lost here I wonder would they evaluate their policies of tending to the red wall gains? I hope not. We must run with the current and tend to our core demographic which has morphed away from trendy, effete, middle class Remainer tossers to real people. I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way but basically I think this makes sense from the Tory point of view. It's better to concentrate on seats where there is only one real rival, namely Labour, especially if that rival is making your task easier by doing everything it can to alienate its previously solid support. And a glance at the current list of Labour-held marginals shows that there are rich further pickings potentially there for the taking.
By contrast, it's a tougher proposition to focus on seats where you are fishing in the same waters as the Lib Dems, the Greens, and of course in many cases (but not C&A), Labour.
The question is the extent to which further Tory gains in traditional Labour heartlands will be off-set by loss of such seats as Hove, Canterbury, C&A (possibly - ask me on Friday) and sundry others. On the whole, while obviously no party likes to lose seats anywhere, I'd say that the terms of trade probably favour the Tories because (i) on the whole, they don't have seem to have as many obviously vulnerable seats as Labour, and (ii) if you have to lose seats, it's better to lose them to a range of rival parties rather than to a single opponent because (a) the other parties may get in each other's way as they did at Kensington, for instance, in the last GE, and (b) a range of parties don't carry conviction as a potential alternative government in the way that a single party would.
Plus, of course, C&A is a byelection: different rules apply and even if the Tories lose it tomorrow they will fancy their chances of recovering it at the next GE (if it survives the boundary review).
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jun 16, 2021 11:20:31 GMT
This argument has been around for at least 30 years and it as wrong now as it was then.
I'm not a huge fan of 'Right to Buy' as a policy in and of itself, but what it meant was that for every purchase, there was one fewer family in social rented housing. If every home that was sold off was replaced by more social housing, then it wouldn't actually achieve anything, you'd just have a handful of lucky people who got to buy a property on the cheap.
To my mind the policy only had value if it meant that the overall level of social housing could be steadily reduced - ideally reaching an end point where there was no social housing at all. Why the fuck should the state be involved at all in where (some) people live anyway? It's needlessly authoritarian and unnecessarily divisive.
The real question we should be asking is: Why? Why should it be thus? How did we get here? Why should it accepted that a certain proportion of the population - including some fairly rich people - should live in housing owned and run and managed by local government and civil servants?
But nobody even wants to have the conversation. Too much self-interest.
A great deal of the council housing sold off is now rented out by private landlords, along with a lot of housing that was never social housing. So there are still lots of people who will never have the financial security of owning their own home. Imo it does not matter whether the landlord is private, public or housing association, the same rules should apply. So if council tenants have the right to buy, so should private tenants. But somehow that does not happen..
I don't disagree with that - the lack of a right to buy for private tenants is one of the perverse incentives that makes social housing a more appealing prospect than private renting. That and it's generally cheaper and more secure.
The situation whereby financial institutions consider someone paying £1500/month in rent unable to afford a £1000/month mortgage is patently ridiculous and another big part of the problem.
We probably differ in that I see the solution as being more ownership and a freer market, rather than more social housing and regulation.
(And before anyone comes out with the contrived 'b-but Ben, you're a libertarian, surely you believe that businesses should be able to do what they want as this is a natural consequence of that' cuntwankery... No. Just no. Individual freedom trumps corporate freedom every time. Big Business is just as bad as Big State and for pretty much the same reasons.)
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 16, 2021 11:25:02 GMT
I hope not. We must run with the current and tend to our core demographic which has morphed away from trendy, effete, middle class Remainer tossers to real people. I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way but basically I think this makes sense from the Tory point of view. It's better to concentrate on seats where there is only one real rival, namely Labour, especially if that rival is making your task easier by doing everything it can to alienate its previously solid support. And a glance at the current list of Labour-held marginals shows that there are rich further pickings potentially there for the taking.
By contrast, it's a tougher proposition to focus on seats where you are fishing in the same waters as the Lib Dems, the Greens, and of course in many cases (but not C&A), Labour.
The question is the extent to which further Tory gains in traditional Labour heartlands will be off-set by loss of such seats as Hove, Canterbury, C&A (possibly - ask me on Friday) and sundry others. On the whole, while obviously no party likes to lose seats anywhere, I'd say that the terms of trade probably favour the Tories because (i) on the whole, they don't have seem to have as many obviously vulnerable seats as Labour, and (ii) if you have to lose seats, it's better to lose them to a range of rival parties rather than to a single opponent because (a) the other parties may get in each other's way as they did at Kensington, for instance, in the last GE, and (b) a range of parties don't carry conviction as a potential alternative government in the way that a single party would.
Plus, of course, C&A is a byelection: different rules apply and even if the Tories lose it tomorrow they will fancy their chances of recovering it at the next GE (if it survives the boundary review).
That is an excellent analysis. The concept of differential 'terms of trade' is most apposite and the very core of the structural problems for each of the majors. Our 'problem' is of a quite different order to that of Labour and one less damaging for the medium longer term as well.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,235
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 16, 2021 11:37:35 GMT
A man very in touch with the party clearly. An associate fellow of Bright Blue, right at the heart of our party obviously... On a wider point, you get these kinds of articles all the time by disgruntled former party insiders who are close to one or more leadership groups in a political party, leave the party, align themselves with another who give them validation and then slag off their old party because some of their new contacts chuck money at them to do just that. And people who can't think for themselves lap it up. What *did* we do to upset Nick Tyrone? Mark Pack has just mentioned this in his latest blog entry, alongside the various other papers quoting the internal poll figures.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,565
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 16, 2021 12:19:02 GMT
A man very in touch with the party clearly. An associate fellow of Bright Blue, right at the heart of our party obviously... On a wider point, you get these kinds of articles all the time by disgruntled former party insiders who are close to one or more leadership groups in a political party, leave the party, align themselves with another who give them validation and then slag off their old party because some of their new contacts chuck money at them to do just that. And people who can't think for themselves lap it up. What *did* we do to upset Nick Tyrone? Mark Pack has just mentioned this in his latest blog entry, alongside the various other papers quoting the internal poll figures. We made him irrelevant within the party... Some people react very badly to becoming nobodies within all parties as I alluded to above. Egomaniacs basically.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 16, 2021 12:19:13 GMT
A great deal of the council housing sold off is now rented out by private landlords, along with a lot of housing that was never social housing. So there are still lots of people who will never have the financial security of owning their own home. Imo it does not matter whether the landlord is private, public or housing association, the same rules should apply. So if council tenants have the right to buy, so should private tenants. But somehow that does not happen..
I don't disagree with that - the lack of a right to buy for private tenants is one of the perverse incentives that makes social housing a more appealing prospect than private renting. That and it's generally cheaper and more secure.
The situation whereby financial institutions consider someone paying £1500/month in rent unable to afford a £1000/month mortgage is patently ridiculous and another big part of the problem.
We probably differ in that I see the solution as being more ownership and a freer market, rather than more social housing and regulation.
(And before anyone comes out with the contrived 'b-but Ben, you're a libertarian, surely you believe that businesses should be able to do what they want as this is a natural consequence of that' cuntwankery... No. Just no. Individual freedom trumps corporate freedom every time. Big Business is just as bad as Big State and for pretty much the same reasons.)
I am not against home ownership at all. I feel lucky to be a home owner and helped my daughter with the deposit on a Southampton apartment as an "advance on inheritance", using my equity to help her. However we should recognise that property creates wealth that is not "earned", and inheritance is one of the great unfair things in society. Wealth should be taxed more than income (but income is much harder to hide, which is a problem) But there are a lot of people for whom "market rents" are not affordable, and imo it is not right for the State to be paying benefits to private landlords. Better to have non profit social housing.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 16, 2021 12:24:54 GMT
I don't disagree with that - the lack of a right to buy for private tenants is one of the perverse incentives that makes social housing a more appealing prospect than private renting. That and it's generally cheaper and more secure.
The situation whereby financial institutions consider someone paying £1500/month in rent unable to afford a £1000/month mortgage is patently ridiculous and another big part of the problem. We probably differ in that I see the solution as being more ownership and a freer market, rather than more social housing and regulation.
(And before anyone comes out with the contrived 'b-but Ben, you're a libertarian, surely you believe that businesses should be able to do what they want as this is a natural consequence of that' cuntwankery... No. Just no. Individual freedom trumps corporate freedom every time. Big Business is just as bad as Big State and for pretty much the same reasons.)
I am not against home ownership at all. I feel lucky to be a home owner and helped my daughter with the deposit on a Southampton apartment as an "advance on inheritance", using my equity to help her. However we should recognise that property creates wealth that is not "earned", and inheritance is one of the great unfair things in society. Wealth should be taxed more than income (but income is much harder to hide, which is a problem) But there are a lot of people for whom "market rents" are not affordable, and imo it is not right for the State to be paying benefits to private landlords. Better to have non profit social housing. Your last point can't be stressed enough. It's a fact that there are a section of the population who cannot buy and it seems bizarre to have mass state subsidy of the private rented sector as the way to house them.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jun 16, 2021 12:31:14 GMT
I don't disagree with that - the lack of a right to buy for private tenants is one of the perverse incentives that makes social housing a more appealing prospect than private renting. That and it's generally cheaper and more secure.
The situation whereby financial institutions consider someone paying £1500/month in rent unable to afford a £1000/month mortgage is patently ridiculous and another big part of the problem.
We probably differ in that I see the solution as being more ownership and a freer market, rather than more social housing and regulation.
(And before anyone comes out with the contrived 'b-but Ben, you're a libertarian, surely you believe that businesses should be able to do what they want as this is a natural consequence of that' cuntwankery... No. Just no. Individual freedom trumps corporate freedom every time. Big Business is just as bad as Big State and for pretty much the same reasons.)
I am not against home ownership at all. I feel lucky to be a home owner and helped my daughter with the deposit on a Southampton apartment as an "advance on inheritance", using my equity to help her. However we should recognise that property creates wealth that is not "earned", and inheritance is one of the great unfair things in society. Wealth should be taxed more than income (but income is much harder to hide, which is a problem) But there are a lot of people for whom "market rents" are not affordable, and imo it is not right for the State to be paying benefits to private landlords. Better to have non profit social housing.
I don't disagree that inheritance is unfair - particularly when the lottery of how and when one dies and whether or not they need to pay for social care at the end of their life is taken into account.
I also think it is spectacularly unfair that some people get to live *for free* in areas that others don't have a hope in hell of ever being able to afford. My father-in-law (OK he's not actually my father-in-law but he's the closest thing my wife had to a father figure in her life) lives on his own in a property in inner London worth about £750,000. He has paid effectively zero rent for 25 years and as an Irish immigrant who despises this country sees it as some sort of victory over the British government. And that's just the start of his myriad ways of gaming the system.
I get that social housing has a use and a purpose and is a vital lifeline to some people. It's also a system open to massive long-term exploitation and is just as much of a divide in society as the one between rich and poor, only in this case there's no middle ground - you're either on the gravy train or not.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jun 16, 2021 12:35:45 GMT
I am not against home ownership at all. I feel lucky to be a home owner and helped my daughter with the deposit on a Southampton apartment as an "advance on inheritance", using my equity to help her. However we should recognise that property creates wealth that is not "earned", and inheritance is one of the great unfair things in society. Wealth should be taxed more than income (but income is much harder to hide, which is a problem) But there are a lot of people for whom "market rents" are not affordable, and imo it is not right for the State to be paying benefits to private landlords. Better to have non profit social housing. Your last point can't be stressed enough. It's a fact that there are a section of the population who cannot buy and it seems bizarre to have mass state subsidy of the private rented sector as the way to house them.
Indeed. And the very existence of such subsidies goes *completely against* Libertarian ideals.
What I object to is when people try to argue - as they did during and following the financial crisis - that stuff that happens because the State intervenes with their big heavy hands is the consequence of free markets. No it fucking isn't, it's the consequence of markets NOT being allowed to be properly free.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 16, 2021 12:40:08 GMT
Your last point can't be stressed enough. It's a fact that there are a section of the population who cannot buy and it seems bizarre to have mass state subsidy of the private rented sector as the way to house them. Indeed. And the very existence of such subsidies goes *completely against* Libertarian ideals.
What I object to is when people try to argue - as they did during and following the financial crisis - that stuff that happens because the State intervenes with their big heavy hands is the consequence of free markets. No it fucking isn't, it's the consequence of markets NOT being allowed to be properly free.
But private landlords simply wouldn't make any money if assistance with rents were not available. Decent accommodation needs to be let at rents which would make an equally decent profit for the landlord. The tenant couldn't afford that, as most in private rented accommodation live there because they aren't eligible for anything else and can't afford to buy. So the market just doesn't provide. Never has.
|
|