Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[edwin_m]

Well, yes, I agree, but we're stuck on a vicious circle of not building enough houses, thus prices for both buying and renting getting silly, so people can't afford to take/do many jobs. so we get more immigration - which makes the issue even worse. The last thing you need when you get to this stage is to have net inwards migration of 600,000 a year, also looking for a place to live.

Brexit of course allows us to control that number whereas before we could not - but for some reason the Tories don't seem interested in doing so, despite their base screaming at them to do so.

One other thing Brexit would allow, that I don't think would be allowed in the EU, is to recognise that the housebuilders are not doing what the country needs (eg. with banking development land for years on end rather than building on it) and so set up a state-owned housebuilder to try to tackle the backlog. But the Tories aren't interested in that either, of course - though neither, I doubt, will Labour.

Also contributing is the expectation that houses will only ever go up at above the rate of inflation, and historically low interest rates until recently, so people were incentivised to buy and then to hang onto the biggest house they thought they could afford - and in some cases borrow more to buy to let. That's ultimately unsustainable but no government has been willing to deflate the bubble gradually, so it's probably now going to burst and lots of people will get soap in their eyes.

Tax cuts for the rich would make this even worse, as they would have more free cash to spend on property. In that way housing is the same as everything else, constrained on the supply side but the government is trying to manage it by choking off demand.

 

[MikeWM]

Also contributing is the expectation that houses will only ever go up at above the rate of inflation, and historically low interest rates until recently, so people were incentivised to buy and then to hang onto the biggest house they thought they could afford - and in some cases borrow more to buy to let. That's ultimately unsustainable but no government has been willing to deflate the bubble gradually, so it's probably now going to burst and lots of people will get soap in their eyes.

Well, yes. I think we all agree that housing policy has been a total disaster over the last 25 years or so, and no-one seems willing to address it because however you do it will hurt a lot of people very badly.

I do think you have to have some degree of personal responsibility, but I also acknowledge that this is difficult when you're sandwiched between unaffordable property to buy and unaffordable property to rent. I waited to buy until I was sure I would be able to afford it even if interest rates went crazy [1] but I do appreciate that I earn a decent salary and most people are not in as fortunate a situation.

[1] as I've probably mentioned before, my meeting with the bank to arrange my mortgage was the day after the Brexit vote, at which point it seemed like pretty much anything could happen :-/

Tax cuts for the rich would make this even worse, as they would have more free cash to spend on property.

A little perhaps, but the top-end houses bought by people earning 150k+ a year aren't really the problem. (That's not to say I support tax cuts for people earning that much, I don't, but I still think the outcry over Truss' proposed cut to restore the tax levels that we had under Blair was wildly overdone and overwrought).

In that way housing is the same as everything else, constrained on the supply side but the government is trying to manage it by choking off demand.

Well, yes, in fact they've pretty much said now that they're ok with a recession if it is a way to bring down inflation! Which is pretty bonkers and shows they are pulling all the wrong levers.

 

[Typhoon]

What a surprise! Now she'll be able to claim her salary and expenses for a few more months, while doing precisely nothing for her constituents. The brass neck of the woman is beyond belief!

(Sorry for late response been out all day)

Surely we have the very people to give this waste of public money the publicity it deserves. Has Sir Jacob been round and left a note on her desk stating that he hopes to see her in the House. It would also be a suitable topic for an evening views show on a UK based 'popular' opinion based media channel, we all know how keen he is to eliminate waste. Other presenters might want to weigh in - I gather that no-one dislikes shirkers more than 30p Lee, and time maybe could be found on the morning programme hosted by Phil and Holly Esther.
Other channels might want to take it up, maybe Jeremy Kyle could creep up on her on (say) a Friday evening and challenge her, maybe have some constituents waiting in the wings who feel like the relationship between them and their MP has broken down.

I wait with baited breath to see how innovative they can be.

 

[SuspectUsual]

So, the committee has called out most of the Johnson acolytes for contempt. What will Sunak’s response be?

Presumably to say it’s a matter for Parliament not Government and he’s focused on delivering on the people’s priorities

Integrity my ar*e, as Jim Royle might have said

 

[ainsworth74]

The discussion about Thames Water and the water industry in general can now be found in its own thread here.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Telegraph and the Mirror are both reporting that an Opinium poll has Labour slightly ahead in Mid Bedfordshire (where Nadine Dorries hasn't yet resigned).

The Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats have all selected candidates who began campaigning in the seat last month, along with Gareth Mackey, a prominent independent councillor on Central Bedfordshire Council.

The poll put the Conservative candidate Festus Akinbusoye on 24 per cent, Labour on 28 per cent, and the Lib Dems on 15 per cent. Mr Mackey picked up 19 per cent among those who selected a candidate, while Reform UK’s candidate, David Holland, was on 10 per cent.

So looks like the Conservatives could well to lose it, and will also be disappointing for the LibDems. The only thing is, quite large vote shares for Independent and Reform, which suggests to me that the figures are very volatile.

 

[Busaholic]

The Telegraph and the Mirror are both reporting that an Opinium poll has Labour slightly ahead in Mid Bedfordshire (where Nadine Dorries hasn't yet resigned).



So looks like the Conservatives could well to lose it, and will also be disappointing for the LibDems. The only thing is, quite large vote shares for Independent and Reform, which suggests to me that the figures are very volatile.

Sir Starmer is such an unbending control freak that he won't countenance any working with or even talking to the LibDems, at least until he realises that an absolute majority may not be his after the Election due in part to his fence sitting.

 

[dosxuk]

until he realises that an absolute majority may not be his after the Election due in part to his fence sitting.

Although, despite his "fence sitting" (aka not solving the government's problems for free), the pools suggest he's set up for a Tory wipeout.

He will need to be losing a significant amount of support to be in a position where a majority is even slightly at risk. The firming up of his policies is likely to cause that drop, as people realise maybe they don't want him as prime minister, rather than attracting more people to the party.

 

[nw1]

Sir Starmer is such an unbending control freak that he won't countenance any working with or even talking to the LibDems, at least until he realises that an absolute majority may not be his after the Election due in part to his fence sitting.

I do fail to understand this. It is blatantly obvious to me that the route to getting the Tories out for sure is for the opposition parties to work together. Infighting between Labour and the Lib Dems is completely counter-productive, "People's Front of Judaea versus the Judaean People's Front" nonsense. Surely Starmer is intelligent enough to realise this?

If Labour had stood down in Esher we'd have probably seen the back of Raab last time. If the vote hadn't been split in Kensington the Tories wouldn't have regained the seat. And so on...

Hopefully though, people will have the sense to vote tactically for the appropriate candidate. I can't see the Tories winning, even as a coalition, unless Labour slip up majorly, but even still, it's surely best for Labour to minimise the chances of that happening by working with other parties?

 

[Yew]

I do fail to understand this. It is blatantly obvious to me that the route to getting the Tories out for sure is for the opposition parties to work together. Infighting between Labour and the Lib Dems is completely counter-productive, "People's Front of Judaea versus the Judaean People's Front" nonsense. Surely Starmer is intelligent enough to realise this?

If Labour had stood down in Esher we'd have probably seen the back of Raab last time. If the vote hadn't been split in Kensington the Tories wouldn't have regained the seat. And so on...

Hopefully though, people will have the sense to vote tactically for the appropriate candidate. I can't see the Tories winning, even as a coalition, unless Labour slip up majorly, but even still, it's surely best for Labour to minimise the chances of that happening by working with other parties?

Remember that picture of Ed Milliband in Nicola Sturgeons pocket during the 15 election?

 

[ainsworth74]

Remember that picture of Ed Milliband in Nicola Sturgeons pocket during the 15 election?

I'm just glad we avoided the chaos under Ed Milliband we would have had to endure if he'd won that election! Can you imagine how bad it would have been compared to the stability and continuity that the Conservative governments since have delivered?

 

[edwin_m]

Remember that picture of Ed Milliband in Nicola Sturgeons pocket during the 15 election?

Starmer has categorically ruled out working with the SNP but hasn't done so in relation to the LibDems. The general problem he faces is that most of the press is against him (even the few left-leaning papers tend to be "critical friends" whereas most of the Tory press is uncritical around election times). So anything remotely controversial will be blown up into a huge issue to attack Labour.

 

[Gloster]

I do not think that Labour and the Liberal-Democrats should make an electoral pact; the only time that a pact is acceptable is in quite exceptional situations, such as Tatton in 1997. Beyond the general ethical principles, there is the problem that much of the press will scream about how Starmer is insulting democracy, the voters, the country, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all by not allowing them the choice.

Much better for both parties to quietly concentrate their efforts on winnable seats and in those seats that they won’t win to put their efforts into attacking the Conservatives. If the Lib-Dems look the most likely to take a seat from the Conservatives, then in that seat Labour should attack the Conservatives and ignore the Lib-Dems, and vice-versa. Every seat that the Conservatives lose improves Labour’s chances of forming the next government, even if the seat goes to another party.

Unfortunately, trying to impose such discipline on Labour constituency parties is like nailing jelly to the ceiling. And of course the papers will get to know and depict it as the greatest threat to democracy since Herod.

 

[brad465]

Remember that picture of Ed Milliband in Nicola Sturgeons pocket during the 15 election?

At least the SNP's current situation has dented their support and led to seat projections giving Labour more seats in Scotland, working to debunk the "Labour can't win without Scotland" and SNP pocket concepts.

 

[Busaholic]

Although, despite his "fence sitting" (aka not solving the government's problems for free), the pools suggest he's set up for a Tory wipeout.

He will need to be losing a significant amount of support to be in a position where a majority is even slightly at risk. The firming up of his policies is likely to cause that drop, as people realise maybe they don't want him as prime minister, rather than attracting more people to the party.

The Labour lead has halved in the last few months. The Conservatives, as well as Labour, might even gain some Scots Nats seats and, of course, the DUP won't be lending support in any way to Labour. He needs an absolute majority and it's by no means even highly probable right now, especially with the redistribution of seats expected to favour the Tories. Sadiq Khan's ULEZ expansion may also reduce Labour votes in some Outer London seats that Labour might be expected to take, such as in Croydon.

 

[takno]

The Labour lead has halved in the last few months. The Conservatives, as well as Labour, might even gain some Scots Nats seats and, of course, the DUP won't be lending support in any way to Labour. He needs an absolute majority and it's by no means even highly probable right now, especially with the redistribution of seats expected to favour the Tories. Sadiq Khan's ULEZ expansion may also reduce Labour votes in some Outer London seats that Labour might be expected to take, such as in Croydon.

The Labour lead has halved from a level which would have seen the Tories left about half a dozen MPs into comfortable overall majority status. A formal pact would be pretty toxic to both parties, and really isn't necessary given that people can be quietly encouraged to vote tactically closer to the election. Certainly in Croydon the likely effect of the ULEZ is that the southern constituencies will get more Tory, and the ones Labour is likely to win will not be affected.

So who does it actually serve for Labour to run around now making up lots of policies which are either contentious or can be stolen, and forming suspicious and presumptuous coalitions?

 

[duncanp]

So who does it actually serve for Labour to run around now making up lots of policies which are either contentious or can be stolen, and forming suspicious and presumptuous coalitions?

But as the election gets closer, Labour will have to come up with some policies, so that people know what they are voting for, rather than what they are voting against.

And if some Labour policies are contentious, don't the voters have a right to know about them before the election, rather than afterwards?

At the moment the entire Labour manifesto seems to be "...we are not the Tories. Vote for us..."

 

[Tester]

At the moment the entire Labour manifesto seems to be "...we are not the Tories. Vote for us..."

That sounds pretty inviting, actually!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But as the election gets closer, Labour will have to come up with some policies, so that people know what they are voting for, rather than what they are voting against.

And if some Labour policies are contentious, don't the voters have a right to know about them before the election, rather than afterwards?

At the moment the entire Labour manifesto seems to be "...we are not the Tories. Vote for us..."

To be fair to Labour, there are a huge number of policies that they are considering in their draft policy platform (link). The only problem is that so far we don't know (because Labour hasn't yet decided) which of those policies will make it to the final manifesto - not unreasonably since it is only a draft and we're probably at least a year away from the election.

 

[MikeWM]

So who does it actually serve for Labour to run around now making up lots of policies which are either contentious or can be stolen,

The country?

If they are good policies and in the interests of the country, if the Tories steal them than the country is better off sooner, which is surely better than narrow party political interest. Plus they can say, with merit, 'they've got no ideas of their own so they keep on stealing ours', which if properly done could be a very effective attack line. And if the policies turn out to be rather less good than expected, they can just keep quiet and let the Tories take the blame.

 

[takno]

At the moment the entire Labour manifesto seems to be "...we are not the Tories. Vote for us..."

Right now that's more than sufficient for most voters

 

[AM9]

And if some Labour policies are contentious, don't the voters have a right to know about them before the election, rather than afterwards?

Voters have the 'right' to ask about all policies prospective candidates promise whether they are in manifestos or not. They don't however have a 'right' to whatever they want to know - so they must vote according to their wishes, recognising that obfuscation is the defacto currency of election campaigns, - just recall the 2016 referendum for some of the best examples of that.

 

[Busaholic]

Starmer has quite a bit of the Gordon Brown about him imo, and there was a man unlikely to ever win an election. Buttoned up, paranoid, seeing enemies everywhere in his own party and the party in the form of its MPs waiting until it was too late to eject him. It seems now that only ''boring, snoring'' Rachel Reeves and scrubbed-up choirboy Wes Streeting have his full confidence. I have a feeling the AI clones have taken over already. Oh, and Mandelson back in the loop, always a worrying factor.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Starmer has quite a bit of the Gordon Brown about him imo, and there was a man unlikely to ever win an election. Buttoned up, paranoid, seeing enemies everywhere in his own party and the party in the form of its MPs waiting until it was too late to eject him. It seems now that only ''boring, snoring'' Rachel Reeves and scrubbed-up choirboy Wes Streeting have his full confidence. I have a feeling the AI clones have taken over already. Oh, and Mandelson back in the loop, always a worrying factor.

Starmer has pretty well suppressed free speech/thinking within the Labour party anyone who dares depart from the party line will be removed from the shadow front bench even Rayner paranoid of her own shadow now. Their relying upon the anti Tory vote to get them over the line not policies and when things don't pan out as people expect there will be a few disaffected people around and there is risk that extreme parties could find themselves in demand.

 

[brad465]

(Deleted original post)


Partygate investigation at Tory HQ being reopened by the Met (the one that video emerged from), however no investigations at Chequers:

Partygate: Police reopen investigation into Tory 'jingle and mingle' event

The Met reopens probe into Tory HQ party but will not investigate Boris Johnson over further alleged breaches of Covid rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Metropolitan Police are reopening an investigation into breaches of Covid regulations at a Christmas party at Conservative Party HQ.
A video of the gathering, where aides were invited to "jingle and mingle", was published by the Sunday Mirror.
Police say they will not investigate alleged gatherings at the prime minister's country home, Chequers, when Boris Johnson was PM.
But they are investigating another event in Parliament on 8 December 2020.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I take it nobody with a brain cell believes that Boris actually can't remember the passcode for his phone?

 

[Gloster]

I take it nobody with a brain cell believes that Boris actually can't remember the passcode for his phone?

I thought the problem was that the ‘phone was lost when Johnson was out on a boat with Rebekah Vardy…

 

[najaB]

I take it nobody with a brain cell believes that Boris actually can't remember the passcode for his phone?

Well, that would require Boris to have a mental capacity above that of a neurally-challenged toadstool so it's not completely beyond the bounds of credibility.

 

[Typhoon]

I take it nobody with a brain cell believes that Boris actually can't remember the passcode for his phone?

Why? He struggles to remember all of his kids. (Although I suppose there are so many more of them.)

 

[brad465]

The suggestion I've heard isn't Johnson is trying to keep secret what was discussed regarding covid, but surrounding some of his other "dealings", such as his ties to Russian donors (we've heard plenty now regarding the trouble intelligence services went to trying to stop Lebedev being put in the Lords as an example of Johnson's known links).