Robert Colvile Profile picture
Oct 8, 2021 6 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Just digging into recent @yougov polling and found a fascinating reproof to Boris's conference speech - even Tory voters want more housing built! (second column)
It's true that the numbers fall when you change the question to 'in my local area', but it is still a majority - and much, much tighter among Tory voters than you would expect from the rampant Nimbyism on stage.
(Anecdotal side note: it is worth flagging that the true blue activist crowd at our @CPSThinkTank fringe meeting with @jacob_rees_mogg went near-unanimously for more housebuilding when he asked for a voice vote.)
Another interesting finding that should be better-known - voters really want house prices to fall! Finding true across all social groups. People are completely aware of the damage they are doing.
In fact, telling people it will cause house prices to fall is one of the best ways to get them to support more housebuilding...
Of course, in fairness to Boris, people really do oppose building on greenfield. But that's partly because they read it as 'green field' rather than 'often quite scrubby land'

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Robert Colvile

Robert Colvile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rcolvile

Aug 17
‘If you want to raise serious money, it is a childish fantasy to pretend that you can do so solely from the few rather than the many.’ Me in @thetimes today on why Labour MPs and activists calling for a wealth tax need to grow up fast. Thread fellows (1/?) Image
The same Labour voices who blocked welfare reforms, forcing Reeves to raise taxes, are now calling for all manner of other goodies - while pretending that the necessary tax rises can be simple and painless. But they absolutely can’t. Image
As I point out in my column (link below), we already tax the rich! Let’s look at the income tax stats.

Top 50% - 75.6% of income, 90.1% of tax

Top 10% - 34.4% of income, 58.6% of tax

Top 1% - 12.6% of income, 26.6% of tax

thetimes.com/comment/column…
Read 20 tweets
Aug 10
The problem isn’t that the Chancellor is going to raise taxes. It’s that unless something drastic changes, she and her successors are going to have to do it again, and again, and again. Me for @thetimes - thread follows (1/?) Image
My column today is on Reeves’s tax rises. But my core argument is that what we’re seeing is the earlier-than-expected arrival of what’s always been coming - an irreconcilable clash between how much we want to spend, and how much we can afford to. thetimes.com/comment/column…
Obviously, Labour’s tax rises, and the summer of uncertainty that preceded them, were horrendous for growth - and as @ArmitageJim says in this great analysis piece, we’re in for exactly the same summer thetimes.com/uk/politics/ar…Image
Read 14 tweets
Aug 6
I am normally a slavish devotee of @Dannythefink, but I think this on the Online Safety Act misses the mark profoundly (1/?) thetimes.com/comment/column…Image
Danny's thesis is that the OSA has just come in, and we should approach it with an open mind until we know how it's actually working. But that ignores everything about how the OSA was put together, and in particular the staggering ignorance shown by lawmakers during that process.
Everyone who knew even the slightest bit about tech had profound concerns about this law, ranging from the core idea of 'legal but harmful' speech, to the chilling effect on tech investment, to the way a law meant to target Google/Meta would actually entrench their dominance.
Read 7 tweets
Jun 15
New analysis from @CPSThinkTank today shows the state is spending almost £24k for every adult in the UK. As I say in my column, this means we are likely spending more than *every single one of us is earning*. And it’s only going to get worse. (1/?)
Why is it going to increase? Because of the lie at the heart of the spending review. Reeves wanted to end austerity - but there wasn’t any money. So she put all the increases into the first half of the parliament. Image
That means Labour is set to go into the election off the back of more ‘Tory austerity’ - overall departmental spending rising by just 1% a year, but much, much less for most departments given that includes 3% pa for the NHS (which is, as ever, getting most of the extra cash). Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 16
Starmer says Whitehall is filled with 'a cottage industry of checkers and blockers'. It’s too hard 'for the most enterprising people in country to just get on with the job'. So he's going to cut compliance costs for firms by 25%. Great! Just a few minor problems... (1/?)
In his speech, Starmer cited Alison, a brewer and publican, who has to spend hours filling in forms. But Alison is about to be hammered by NIC rises and minimum wage hikes! Image
Then there's the Employment Rights Bill, voted through the Commons on literally the same day as Starmer's speech, which will... raise compliance costs for business, by between £0.9bn & £4.5bn (though we'll come back to that).
Read 15 tweets
Mar 9
Welfare reform is not just a fiscal necessity, but a moral one - because as I argue in @thetimes today we're not just paying people off, but writing them off. (1/?) Image
The govt is set to announce a rumoured £5bn in benefit cuts. It's already hugely controversial. Yet as I point out in my column today, it would cover just 1/16th of the predicted increase in the welfare bill. thetimes.com/comment/column…Image
Of course, a lot of that is pensions (hi, triple lock!). But the other big driver is ill health. Today, 9.3 million people of working age are economically inactive, and 6m on out of work benefits. Of those, 2.8 million are inactive due to illness - up from 2m before the pandemic. Image
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(