Topic: UK GE and Local Elections, plus polls, and policy.

[Nobby Reserve]

There's enough retiring Tory MPs

After the next GE, I think most will be retiring as MPs!

[TheShanklyGates]

Running the latest YouGov poll through Electoral Calculus throws up quite an outcome. Obviously the chances of this actually playing out in the election are slim to none but just for fun here it is:



It would be a democratic travesty of the like never seen before.

Labour would get a supermajority of seats despite falling some way short of a majority of votes.
The Lib Dems would become the official opposition despite having a measly 9% vote share, the 4th largest party in the results.
The Tories would be reduced to only 6 seats more than the SNP despite having nearly 6 times as many votes. They'd have 4% of the total seats in the Commons despite securing 20% of the votes.
Reform would finish on 0 seats despite finishing 3rd in the election with the support of 1 in every 8 voters.

Part of me hopes it happens, firstly for the hilarity of the Tory and Reform outcomes but mostly just to highlight that FPTP is a joke

[Red Beret]

In 1983, the combined vote of the SDP-Liberal Alliance and Labour comfortably outstripped the Tories - but Thatcher still waltzed home with a 144 majority. And the Tories' share of the vote actually decreased when compared to 1979!

[Kenny's Jacket]

Part of me hopes it happens, firstly for the hilarity of the Tory and Reform outcomes but mostly just to highlight that FPTP is a joke

Ive mentioned this before but the %votes to seats for Lib Dems is baffling.

[Statto Red]

Part of me hopes it happens, firstly for the hilarity of the Tory and Reform outcomes but mostly just to highlight that FPTP is a joke

It'd be very funny to see the Tories nearly wiped out [the Tories deserve being wiped out] but it won't happen, think the Tories will get 100+ seats, think be similar to the 97 election

[killer-heels]

If Labour do get a mega majority then it will be an absolute travesty if they dont look to implement major change. The pressure will be on.

I know Red-Soldier wont agree but I think a massive thing they can do is run over any blockages to house building. Really ramp it up, put pressure on firms to build and tell Nimby’s in Tory and Labour heartlands to fuck off.

[Kenny's Jacket]

If Labour do get a mega majority then it will be an absolute travesty if they dont look to implement major change. The pressure will be on.

I know Red-Soldier wont agree but I think a massive thing they can do is run over any blockages to house building. Really ramp it up, put pressure on firms to build and tell Nimby’s in Tory and Labour heartlands to fuck off.

In the Senedd Wales always votes Labour, Planning laws in Wales are still very strict. If thats anything to go by.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Seems more daunting prospects for Cons in Parliament's future.

If I were them I'd be worried about all of the investigations that I expect Starmer has ready to go.

[LuverlyRita]

The big issue with house building (over the pasr 30-40 years), is that there has been no joined-up thinking.  No planning whatsoever, on a local, regional, and national scale.

Also, how will house building help the most needy in society?  It wont, per say.  However, sustainable, social housing will.

If you are going down the housing route, I'd also come down on multiple property ownership, too.  A scale that hammers people with more properties, the most - 1,000s, 100s, 10s, >10, etc.

Agree with all of this although I think the problems go further back. I can remember the large scale projects that happened during the 1960s and which have proved to be a disaster - especially the high-rise tower blocks (many of which have already been demolished). On top of that there were the new towns which were constructed without adequate transport links or local facilities. Even now I see housing estates being built but I don't see any new doctors surgeries.
You have to take step back and look at the bigger picture and these days that includes factoring in climate change - especially rain which needs somewhere to run off. We also saw during lock-downs that green spaces have enormous value to people's mental health so simply concreting over the UK is a non-starter. It's also crazy that we're still building houses that have poor thermal insulation and no capability to generate green energy. While a roof over the head is the most important thing, I don't see why they have to be ugly concrete blocks either. So far from relaxing planning laws, I'd be looking to amend them with the aim of achieving a better overall outcome. You need to ensure that areas remain pleasant and convenient places to live with sufficient local facilities, you need new properties to meet high building standards and to be affordable to run and you want to avoid simply lining the pockets of builders (that's if you can find one - they're like hen's teeth at the moment).
I agree that a good start would be multiple property ownership and I'd have AirBnB in my sights. I've seen taxis of tourists pull up outside new starter homes which is shameful when there are so many homeless in the city and there have been lots of complaints from residents about neighbouring properties being empty during the week and let out for party weekends.

[Nobby Reserve]

Agree with all of this although I think the problems go further back. I can remember the large scale projects that happened during the 1960s and which have proved to be a disaster - especially the high-rise tower blocks (many of which have already been demolished). On top of that there were the new towns which were constructed without adequate transport links or local facilities. Even now I see housing estates being built but I don't see any new doctors surgeries.
You have to take step back and look at the bigger picture and these days that includes factoring in climate change - especially rain which needs somewhere to run off. We also saw during lock-downs that green spaces have enormous value to people's mental health so simply concreting over the UK is a non-starter. It's also crazy that we're still building houses that have poor thermal insulation and no capability to generate green energy. While a roof over the head is the most important thing, I don't see why they have to be ugly concrete blocks either. So far from relaxing planning laws, I'd be looking to amend them with the aim of achieving a better overall outcome. You need to ensure that areas remain pleasant and convenient places to live with sufficient local facilities, you need new properties to meet high building standards and to be affordable to run and you want to avoid simply lining the pockets of builders (that's if you can find one - they're like hen's teeth at the moment).
I agree that a good start would be multiple property ownership and I'd have AirBnB in my sights. I've seen taxis of tourists pull up outside new starter homes which is shameful when there are so many homeless in the city and there have been lots of complaints from residents about neighbouring properties being empty during the week and let out for party weekends.

Excellent post.

We also need to consider that every agricultural field that's concreted over means more food that has to be imported = more food miles.

We already have one of the most densely populated countries in the world. How about thinking toward not constantly increasing the population?

Or do we just change the lyrics of that hymn to 'this grey and concreted land'?

[Red Beret]

Saw an article on the Guardian saying the wet weather this winter has completely fucked British farmers. I imagine that means we will have to consider importing foostuffs = more expensive.

[Wabaloolah]

Excellent post.

We also need to consider that every agricultural field that's concreted over means more food that has to be imported = more food miles.

We already have one of the most densely populated countries in the world. How about thinking toward not constantly increasing the population?

Or do we just change the lyrics of that hymn to 'this grey and concreted land'?

get racist Reformers in government then, they would not only limit migration but kick out a few "darkies" too!


I know that's not what you meant but that's the angle they'll be playing on come the GE campaign

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Excellent post.

We also need to consider that every agricultural field that's concreted over means more food that has to be imported = more food miles.

We already have one of the most densely populated countries in the world. How about thinking toward not constantly increasing the population?

Or do we just change the lyrics of that hymn to 'this grey and concreted land'?

There's plenty of room to build, would you prefer a 1 child policy ?

[west_london_red]

There's plenty of room to build, would you prefer a 1 child policy ?

We’re pretty much headed that way anyway, the birth rate in this country like most of the western world is absolutely crashing because people can’t afford to have kids.

[Circa1892]

We’re pretty much headed that way anyway, the birth rate in this country like most of the western world is absolutely crashing because people can’t afford to have kids.

Yep.

Astonishing nobody has got to grips with this yet.

It’s a problem with being incentivised by the immediate term. We’re a generation at most away from the working population and retired population being broadly the same size.

The only way to pay for that is going to be moving the pension age to basically make it pointless, insane taxes or ludicrous high immigration.

We should be seeing policies like 2 year maternity/paternity entitlements spread out over the first few years. Probably tax incentives for having kids.

[killer-heels]

We’re pretty much headed that way anyway, the birth rate in this country like most of the western world is absolutely crashing because people can’t afford to have kids.

Even some fat c*nt from Conservative home was moaning about this on the TV. That people dont want immigration and want people to have more kids despite everything being out of reach and then when there is any mention of benefits or incentives when you have kids that people moan about how people shouldnt have them if you cant afford them.

[reddebs]

Surely encouraging people to have more kids means less people able to work though?

There isn't enough child care provision for the families who need it now and it's only getting worse.

[west_london_red]

Yep.

Astonishing nobody has got to grips with this yet.

It’s a problem with being incentivised by the immediate term. We’re a generation at most away from the working population and retired population being broadly the same size.

The only way to pay for that is going to be moving the pension age to basically make it pointless, insane taxes or ludicrous high immigration.

We should be seeing policies like 2 year maternity/paternity entitlements spread out over the first few years. Probably tax incentives for having kids.

The problem is no one’s ever happy and the government is skint.

Some employers will struggle to pay 2 years maternity leave if they have to contribute to that, statutory maternity is about £140 a week IIRC which many people will either struggle to live on or won’t want to. Restore things like child benefit to those on more then £50k and people will complain it’s regressive, if you means target support then the middle classes get pissed off asking why they are subsiding people who can’t afford to have kids when they can’t. Ultimately like most things wrong with this country it comes down to housing, people generally dont have children until they have the security of owning a home, as they can’t do that or if they can it’s stretched them financially to the point they that they both need to work full time and can’t afford kids, build houses then you’ve got the green brigade who will say that we’re over populated and start crying if we actually build homes large enough for families to live in anywhere within a mile of a tree.

Basically we’re fucked.

[west_london_red]

Surely encouraging people to have more kids means less people able to work though?

There isn't enough child care provision for the families who need it now and it's only getting worse.

In the short term yes, but in the long term no, the kids will obviously grown up, get jobs and pay taxes etc

[TSC]

In the short term yes, but in the long term no, the kids will obviously grown up, get jobs and pay taxes etc

China had a one child only policy for years but more recently reversed that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57303592

[Circa1892]

Surely encouraging people to have more kids means less people able to work though?

There isn't enough child care provision for the families who need it now and it's only getting worse.

Yeah but the current fertility rate is something like 1.55.

So let’s base this on an old fashioned nuclear family model (I know it’s not like that across the board, but it’s easiest for the stats). Basically for every couple of 2, they’re producing 1.55 kids. Which means in 20 years time we have a workforce that has a massive disproproportinae number of 50 year olds for new entrants. In 50 years time the majority of adults are a pensioner. It’s worrying.

In my team at work (pretty secure, reasonablyish paid public sector jobs) there’s 7 of us between 27 and 36. No kids and only I’ve got one on the way.

[reddebs]

In the short term yes, but in the long term no, the kids will obviously grown up, get jobs and pay taxes etc

That still doesn't address the child care shortage though. 

Parents can only work if they have affordable childcare, or any childcare and it takes much longer to train them than it does to have the babies.  That's if enough suitable people want to be trained in childcare.

[reddebs]

Yeah but the current fertility rate is something like 1.55.

So let’s base this on an old fashioned nuclear family model (I know it’s not like that across the board, but it’s easiest for the stats). Basically for every couple of 2, they’re producing 1.55 kids. Which means in 20 years time we have a workforce that has a massive disproproportinae number of 50 year olds for new entrants. In 50 years time the majority of adults are a pensioner. It’s worrying.

In my team at work (pretty secure, reasonablyish paid public sector jobs) there’s 7 of us between 27 and 36. No kids and only I’ve got one on the way.

I understand that side of it mate but if those 7 all got pregnant now where is the childcare provision coming from so they can be back working again in 18mths after their maternity leave ends.

Nobody wants to train in any kind of care work cos it's shit hours and crap pay but if they get paid more nobody can afford it anyway.

Maybe instead of raising the pension age they should reduce it so that grandparents could be paid to do the childcare instead 🤷

[Circa1892]

That still doesn't address the child care shortage though. 

Parents can only work if they have affordable childcare, or any childcare and it takes much longer to train them than it does to have the babies.  That's if enough suitable people want to be trained in childcare.

Yep - there also needs to be seen to be a proper career for the masses.

There’s qualifications that qualify people to work with kids at 18, but most of them go to Uni because they’re only offered minimum wage low development jobs. There should be massive investment to make it an appealing move.

Anyway this has derailed a bit - basically someone needs to offer a bit of fucking hope in this election. Not asking for 2008 Obama, 1997 Blair or whatever - just someone offering a way of things being a bit better.

[Circa1892]

I understand that side of it mate but if those 7 all got pregnant now where is the childcare provision coming from so they can be back working again in 18mths after their maternity leave

More to the point what would I do as they do all the fucking work while I knock about on here!

[reddebs]

More to the point what would I do as they do all the fucking work while I knock about on here!

Yeah it's not like they can be replaced unless temps come in to cover their leave so looks like you'd be stepping it up big time mate 😁

[west_london_red]

That still doesn't address the child care shortage though. 

Parents can only work if they have affordable childcare, or any childcare and it takes much longer to train them than it does to have the babies.  That's if enough suitable people want to be trained in childcare.

Unfortunately we’re lead by a government that believes in supply and demand and the market but doesn’t understand it. If you want people to do a job they are currently not doing you need to pay them more, but that’s an issue across just about anything and everything paid for by the government.

[Nobby Reserve]

Yeah but the current fertility rate is something like 1.55.

So let’s base this on an old fashioned nuclear family model (I know it’s not like that across the board, but it’s easiest for the stats). Basically for every couple of 2, they’re producing 1.55 kids. Which means in 20 years time we have a workforce that has a massive disproproportinae number of 50 year olds for new entrants. In 50 years time the majority of adults are a pensioner. It’s worrying.

Increasing AI and automation of white collar functions can step in to fill that gap

The problem then is who financially benefits from the economic activity performed by AI? If it's a small number of capital/AI-owners becoming super-rich (and able to dodge paying tax) then the country won't be able to financially support all those pensioners.

So the task is finding a way to remove the beneficial ownership of the AI/automated function from a small number of capital-owners, and place that into the hands of the state, who can then distribute it to those past working age.

The jobs that are unable to be AI'd/automated will still need doing, and they can be performed by those of working age. Ideally in conjunction with the implementation of a Universal Basic Income.

I'm being incredibly simplistic here, but as a very broad principle it's theoretically sound.

And beats hands down keep importing an every-increasing number of people to perform the jobs to pay for the old age living of that aging population, whilst a small number of super-rich live a parasitic lifestyle of hoovering up income derived from the labours of others.

[PaulF]

Fewer children is the only way we keep the planet habitable. 

[Riquende]

Fewer children is the only way we keep the planet habitable.

[Wabaloolah]

That odious twerp Galloway has a good shot at winning the Rochdale by-election unfortunately given the mess both Labour and the Greens have made in their candidate selection

[killer-heels]

So it looks like Hunt is considering closing the non dom tax loophole to fund other tax cuts. That will leave Labour royally fucked.

[Red-Soldier]

So it looks like Hunt is considering closing the non dom tax loophole to fund other tax cuts. That will leave Labour royally fucked.

It'll be a smart move by Hunt, if he does do it.  It wont save the Tories though.

But, it will mean Labour will have less to offer.  Obviously, they could say the Tories are pinching our policies, which would be correct.

[killer-heels]

It'll be a smart move by Hunt, if he does do it.  It wont save the Tories though.

But, it will mean Labour will have less to offer.  Obviously, they could say the Tories are pinching our policies, which would be correct.

They will have nothing to offer, certainly in terms of extra money. Thats all the new money they were pledging and that was going to the NHS and breakfast clubs.

[killer-heels]

Don't forget the private school stuff, can't remember whast it was exactly.  It was another fudged policy.

Yes the VAT thing, think that was going to schools.

Will this be the lightest manifesto ever?

[killer-heels]

It'll be one of the lightest winning manifestos ever, possibly.  Do you need a substantial manifesto to win, anymore?  What was Johnson's in 2019: "I'm not Corbyn", "Get Brexit Done".

Yep. I reckon Starmer should not release one and just say trust us.

[Nobby Reserve]

Yes the VAT thing, think that was going to schools.

Will this be the lightest manifesto ever?

Just keep the good ship Blighty on the same course towards the cliffs, throwing more and more people overboard every mile.

But maybe Labour will throw the odd lifejacket in, too - so let's all vote for them, because they mean well.

All the while, the billionaires and other parasites sip champagne on the beaches of nearby tropical islands shouting the occasional "Keep going, you'll be fine.... just don't change course or cast your envious eyes at our gilded lives and riches"

[oldfordie]

Labours price to win Rochdale by-election has been slashed over the last hour or so. Galloways price has drifted out. both are roughly Evens meaning the bookies think it's a toss up right now. a no win situation really but be happy to see Galloway walloped, he will walk away for good if beaten hopefully.

[Elmo!]

Labours price to win Rochdale by-election has been slashed over the last hour or so. Galloways price has drifted out. both are roughly Evens meaning the bookies think it's a toss up right now. a no win situation really but be happy to see Galloway walloped, he will walk away for good if beaten hopefully.

Don't get your hopes up, he'll find somewhere else to carry on the grift.

[Red Beret]

Worrying about these Tory taxation plans. Looks like they really are going to go Scorched Earth - steal Labour's taxation plans to fund tax cuts, whereas Labour wants the money to invest in services. They really will be working with a bare cupboard if it goes through.

I have almost no hope that there would be sufficient Tory rebels ideologically opposed to this to vote it down.