[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Machiavelli]

When we were buying a couple of years ago we started off with the idea of a new build. We looked at several new build sites around Sussex. Some of the houses were ok but they all had tiny gardens and evidence of flooding and drainage issues eg waterlogged gardens which you often get in new build sites with so much concrete being laid. Most were nowhere near shops or healthcare services or community amenities (inc pubs). I suppose these will appear eventually but it could take a long time. We ended up going for an older house in a proper community.

I realise it's not an easy problem to solve. It's why immigration at the current rate of about 600k a year is totally unsustainable -- but of course it's a topic that is hard to discuss without very quickly being accused of hating non-white people or some other nonsense. The sooner we're allowed to discuss these things rationally the better. I lived overseas for years in countries that rely far more heavily on apartment living than we do in the UK. Well designed apartment blocks with good inbuilt amenities (gym, communal garden etc) which could accommodate far more people per sq/m than traditional houses could be a partial answer.

I don't think there will be too many people that would state that 600,000 immigrants is sustainable (especially if there's no emigration). But:
-- there was emigration
-- it's widely known that the 600,000 was a freak figure, due to multiple factors and I'm willing to have a large bet that it will fall substantially for the next set of recorded figures, and remain more or less at that level.
Equally though, we require immigration because there is a need for labour to service an ageing population.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Still quite a fascinating statistic than since 1980 only two PM have been put into power by a general election.

Cameron and Blair.

I’m interested in the ways stats are used. This one is slightly misleading, though I’m sure that wasn’t your intention. The period you choose starts with 1980, a year in which there was no election, and one year after a third PM, Thatcher, was elected at a GE. So the period you’ve chosen includes 10 years that couldn’t include any new PMs in any case. This is a bit like saying in August that a football club ‘hasn’t won for three months', ignoring the fact they didn’t play any matches in that period.

So you should say 'Since 1979 only three PMs…'.

It’s true that Major (1990) didn’t become PM at a GE though he was endorsed as PM in 1992. So if your stat wants to focus only on PMs who first became PM at a general election, you’d have to say 'Since 1997, only two PMs…'

 

[Titanic]

Big difference in the membership at each conference over the past few weeks.

Tories: not many members in Manchester and those that were present flocked to Truss, Braverman and Farage etal.

Labour getting behind Keir and the Shadow Cab team.

Belief on one side, division and preparing for opposition on the other.

Indeed... Lady Victoria is already measuring up for new curtains at No.10

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Not odd at all. Client journalism does not mean what you describe. Journos like Pippa Cleary tweets about Starmers Labour through a positive filter process and they word their tweets accordingly. Rachel Wearmouth does the same.

Tories do the same through their network of journalists.

Its thoroughly depressing.

It's just journalism – or reporting on what actually happened.

 

[Weststander]

R5's Nicky Campbell just now are covering Labour's solution to the housing crisis.

 

[clapham_gull]

peculiar stat to make, does winning an election as an incumbent not count?

There is definitely something about the electorate having the chance to vote someone out.

.. and we didn't get the chance with any PM since Cameron. I suspect Sunak will get clobbered for it

 

[Stato]

I’m interested in the ways stats are used. This one is slightly misleading, though I’m sure that wasn’t your intention. The period you choose starts with 1980, a year in which there was no election, and one year after a third PM, Thatcher, was elected at a GE. So the period you’ve chosen includes 10 years that couldn’t include any new PMs in any case. This is a bit like saying in August that a football club ‘hasn’t won for three months', ignoring the fact they didn’t play any matches in that period.

So you should say 'Since 1979 only three PMs…'.

It’s true that Major (1990) didn’t become PM at a GE though he was endorsed as PM in 1992. So if your stat wants to focus only on PMs who first became PM at a general election, you’d have to say 'Since 1997, only two PMs…'

Whilst I understand and appreciate your clarification, I think @clapham_gull 's point is of note separately as it's indicative that there is an advantage to being an incumbent PM. Over the last twelve UK general elections, only Thatcher and Blair won an overall majority when facing an incumbent.

Incumbent wins: Wilson 1974, Thatcher 1983 & 1987, Major 1992, Blair 2001 & 2005, Cameron 2015, May 2017, Johnson 2019.
Non Incumbent wins: Thatcher 1979, Blair 1997, Cameron 2010 (Didn't win an overall majority).

Seven of our last ten Prime ministers: Sunak, Truss, Johnson, May, Brown, Major & Callaghan all became PM through being chosen by their party members, not the country and, if they lasted long enough to face the electorate, did so from a point of incumbent advantage.

 

[clapham_gull]

So if your stat wants to focus only on PMs who first became PM at a general election, you’d have to say 'Since 1997, only two PMs…'

I know what I wanted it to focus on, thank you.

 

[beorhthelm]

There is definitely something about the electorate having the chance to vote someone out.

.. and we didn't get the chance with any PM since Cameron. I suspect Sunak will get clobbered for it

what about 2017 and 2019 elections? dont see the point being made. if anything, looking back through history of PMs shows how ordinary it is to assume office without an election.

 

[Machiavelli]

what about 2017 and 2019 elections? dont see the point being made. if anything, looking back through history of PMs shows how ordinary it is to assume office without an election.

It really isn't difficult to understand. The point is that since 1980 only two non-incumbents have won a general election. Non-incumbency here refers to both the leader and the party.

Edit: this is how the point was originally made, and is more elegant than the way I've done so:

Still quite a fascinating statistic than since 1980 only two PM have been put into power by a general election.

Cameron and Blair.

 

[KZNSeagull]

R5's Nicky Campbell just now are covering Labour's solution to the housing crisis.

And ended with brickies phoning in saying that there aren't anything like enough of them around to build 300,000 houses a year.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I know what I wanted it to focus on, thank you.

That's a bit unnecessarily rude so I'll be more honest: the statistic is misleading for the reasons stated.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Seven of our last ten Prime ministers: Sunak, Truss, Johnson, May, Brown, Major & Callaghan all became PM through being chosen by their party members, not the country and, if they lasted long enough to face the electorate, did so from a point of incumbent advantage.

On a constitutional note ALL PMs are chosen by the party members and never by the country. We elect MPs who represent parties. The leader of the most successful party at an election becomes PM. That leader is elected by the party members and MPs alone, and not by the national electorate.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I'll probably vote Labour and I hope he wins but he really is a bit of a drip. I lasted about 5 minutes of that speech yesterday before I thought "Bored" How many floating voters will be swayed by his personality? Not loads i'm guessing unless he gets out of 2nd gear.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

And ended with brickies phoning in saying that there aren't anything like enough of them around to build 300,000 houses a year.

Which is definitely true.

More freedom of movement watering down incoming

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I'll probably vote Labour and I hope he wins but he really is a bit of a drip. I lasted about 5 minutes of that speech yesterday before I thought "Bored" How many floating voters will be swayed by his personality? Not loads i'm guessing unless he gets out of 2nd gear.

I agree. Neither Starmer or Rachel Reeves have any charisma. I still think Labour is likely to win but I've a feeling it'll be much closer than is assumed, especially once the TV debates get under way. We shouldn't be so influenced by personality but we are. Theresa May was a shoo-in in 2017 but only just scraped through. A shame that the LibDems also have such a wet dishcloth as a leader otherwise we may have had another Clegg-inspired hung parliament. I still don't rule that out. Anyone who was a Labour supporter in 92 will remember the shock of Kinnock's failure.

 

[Weststander]

And ended with brickies phoning in saying that there aren't anything like enough of them around to build 300,000 houses a year.

That skills shortage started in the John Major early 90's recession, construction companies of all sizes (many didn't survive) abandoned training. We've never recovered.

Then and @WATFORD zero will like my next comment .... making Polish builders unwelcome post Referendum was another body blow.

 

[Machiavelli]

That skills shortage started in the John Major early 90's recession, construction companies of all sizes (many didn't survive) abandoned training. We've never recovered.

Then and @WATFORD zero will like my next comment .... making Polish builders unwelcome post Referendum was another body blow.

Note also that there is joined-up thinking going on, because one of the big commitments is for boosting technical colleges and other post-16 education to address the 'missions'. With a bit of luck, some of the funding for this can come through devising special taxes (windfalls would be only one example) for housebuilding companies.

 

[KZNSeagull]

That skills shortage started in the John Major early 90's recession, construction companies of all sizes (many didn't survive) abandoned training. We've never recovered.

Then and @WATFORD zero will like my next comment .... making Polish builders unwelcome post Referendum was another body blow.

Yes they mentioned that too re the Poles and also that the kids coming out of these courses don't work fast enough. Seems an appetite for it though based on a straw poll in the local Spar ( ) by my wife who works there and serves the 4 brickies building across the road - 1 experienced and 3 apprentices in their mid to late 20's, 2 of whom were training to be electricians but changed to bricklaying as it pays more.

 

[Weststander]

Yes they mentioned that too re the Poles and also that the kids coming out of these courses don't work fast enough. Seems an appetite for it though based on a straw poll in the local Spar ( ) by my wife who works there and serves the 4 brickies building across the road - 1 experienced and 3 apprentices in their mid to late 20's, 2 of whom were training to be electricians but changed to bricklaying as it pays more.

At least they weren't at home in their dark putrid bedrooms, on Xbox's