Already seeing people saying 'we just need to reunite the Right, job done'. But I've been crunching the numbers and it's not quite that simple/encouraging. Quick thread (1/?) The Tories have lost 250 seats. In 166 of them, the Reform vote was larger than the size of the Tory majority. Farage has very clearly cost the Conservatives dozens and dozens of seats.

56% of voters think their taxes will rise under Labour. Which means 44% aren't paying attention. Have written for @thetimes on the nonsense numbers underpinning the campaign. (1/?) thetimes.co.uk/article/labour… 1) 'Decarbonising grid by 2030 and setting up Great British Energy will save £300 on your bills' - no. As highlighted the other day, the £300 figure is based on energy cap at Q3 2023 levels. It's now come down, meaning the Tories have delivered most/all of these 'savings'.

Argh. I know elections are a time for bad numbers on all sides. But Labour's sums on energy/savings are a particularly aggravating form of bullshit. Quick thread (1/?) bbc.co.uk/news/articles/… Labour says that its plans would 'turn the page on the cost of living crisis' and reduce bills by £300 per household. To justify this figure, it points to 'research by think tank Ember'.

It's often said that Twitter isn't the electorate. That's normally expressed in terms of left-right bias. But as the last few days show, there's another axis on which it's true - age. (1/?) If you want to know why the Tories are focusing on National Service and the 'quadruple lock', it's not just that their core voters are elderly. It's that voters are, full stop.

Big new report out on the immigration system from @CPSThinkTank, by @RobertJenrick, @NeilDotObrien & @MalvernianKarl. There’s a huge amount of really interesting stuff in there – so let me run through the key points/charts. (1/?) cps.org.uk/research/takin…
The first and most obvious point is that there has been a HUGE (and historically unprecedented) rise in net migration. In the 25 years before Tony Blair took office, cumulative migration was almost 100x lower than in the 25 years after.

Is Britain ready for the Baby Bust? My column this week is on, quite literally, the biggest story in the world - what's happening to population. Quick thread as some of the stats are pretty jaw-dropping (1/?) thetimes.co.uk/article/were-d… A big new study in the Lancet confirms what demographers have known for ages - we're heading for a shrinking planet. By 2100, fertility rates in 97% of countries will be below replacement rates healthdata.org/news-events/ne…

Yes, it's another prominent article in the Guardian pretending that we don't need to build any more houses. And like all the others, it's riddled with glaring errors. Just in case anyone believes this bullshit, let's do the thread thing. (1/far too many) theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2… Central thesis of this article: there is no shortage of housing. It's all about landlords. Literally 'mass-scale housebuilding isn't necessary'. Punch! But, er, wrong.

I've written before about @SadiqKhan's thoroughly awful record on housing, and his relentless attempts to gaslight London into believing the opposite, but surely even his most loyal cronies can't defend the latest figures, published today. (1/?) Target for GLA affordable housing starts, 2021-6: 23,900 to 27,100 p.a.

Actual GLA affordable housing starts, first three quarters of 2023-4: 874

The new population projections are out. And they show (shock!) that we either need to cut net migration, or build WAY more houses. Preferably, both. Quick thread (1/) As @CPSThinkTank has pointed out repeatedly, the 300k a year housing target is based on a decade-old estimate that net migration would be 170,500 a year. The levels we've had have been... not that.

Everyone is talking about Horizon/Fujitsu. But there are some key aspects everyone has missed - including the big reason Fujitsu kept getting contracts even after the scandal broke. Have done a deep dive for my column - thread below (1/?) thetimes.co.uk/article/the-vi…
The story starts in the 60s, when the Wilson govt hits on a new solution to Britain's lack of competitiveness - not nationalisation, but national direction. It forces private firms to merge (at gunpoint) to create 'national champions' which can export to the world.

Really, really striking finding from the latest @ONS polling - 56% of people say housing is one of the most important issues facing the country. That may not sound like much, given it's behind eg climate change. But there's a really important corollary. (1/3) An absolute truckload of people (technical term) own outright. Among those with mortgages, a large proportion have paid off much of it. So what this is saying is that pretty much everyone actually paying a mortgage/rent thinks housing is a huge issue, plus many who don't.

I don't want to write about Simon Jenkins. You don't want to read about Simon Jenkins. But yet, the Guardian keeps letting him make these awful, awful arguments. So here (again) is why he is not just wrong, but wilfully ignorant theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is the core of the Jenkins view:

- Cameron took control of planning from councils
- His targets were 'bizarre', 'arbitrary' and 'based on a confusion of need and demand'
- As a result, SE England has been carpeted with housing

But *every one* of those claims is false.

Decided to look up which sinister multinational actually owns Yorkshire Tea. Turns out, Taylors of Harrogate was bought up back in 1962. By, er, the company that runs Bettys tea rooms. Hence the most delightfully English statement of accounts you'll ever read More details on the firm here. Oh, and they've also been running a profit-sharing scheme for employees for the past 40 years bettysandtaylors.co.uk/about/

Only two things are truly infinite. The universe, and the errors and hypocrisy of Simon Jenkins when writing about housing and planning. Yes, he's done another column. Let's dive in. (1/?) theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
OK! First paragraph, and the idea of compensating people for disturbance to their surroundings is dismissed as 'the most bizarre planning bribe in history'. When @OctopusEnergy launched its 'Fan Club' to do exactly this, it got 20,000+ bids for local wind turbines!

If you want to understand what getting to Net Zero actually means for Britain, ignore all the stuff about seven bins and meat taxes. To all intents and purposes, Net Zero is about one thing above all - electrification. (1/?) thetimes.co.uk/article/whethe… This is where Britain's emissions are coming from/going to - overwhelmingly gas and oil for energy, transport etc. (Also note how much they've been coming down - yay us...)

One of the most common accusations about the Tories’ proposed nutrient neutrality reforms is that they represent a handout to housebuilders. Unfortunately, Labour seem to be proposing to replace that with a handout to landowners. Quick thread. (1/?) In @thetimes today, @AngelaRayner & @SteveReedMP (seen here looking like a feuding couple stuck together at a wedding) announce that Labour will be voting against the nutrient neutrality reforms and putting forward its own amendment. thetimes.co.uk/article/plan-t…

A powerful piece from Matthew Parris on nutrient neutrality, but it fails to mention just a few key points. Short thread thetimes.co.uk/article/michae… 1) Nutrient neutrality was not ‘nibbling away at housebuilders’ profits’. It was preventing the construction of an estimated 145k homes. And no, the mitigation scheme wasn’t working.

Nutrient neutrality! The government is planning to fix it. But what is it? How does it work? Why does it matter? Make yourself an Instant Expert with this handy guide. (1/?) The story starts with the EU Habitats Directive (1992). This set up a Europe-wide regime to protect and if possible revive particularly valuable sites and plant/animal species. There are now 658 such Special Areas of Conservation across the UK - list here sac.jncc.gov.uk/site/

Going on holiday but just time for one last thread on two reliably infuriating topics - misleading statistics and lack of housebuilding. Feat friend of the show @SadiqKhan, seen here nobly staring into a golden future (1/?) This week, @RishiSunak and @SadiqKhan have been having a big row about housing targets. Rishi said Sadiq wasn't building enough, so he would 'step in'. Sadiq said he wasn't just building, but building lots and lots and lots, and would build even more if not for evil Tories.

A lot of people on the Right saying the Tories need to ditch Net Zero after Uxbridge (just like they ditched planning reform after Chesham & Amersham). On the polling evidence, they're getting WAY over their skis. Quick thread. First and most obvious point: Net Zero is REALLY popular. As this recent polling from @ECIU_UK shows, people (inc Con voters) generally really like it, and generally think that if anything the govt hasn't done enough rather than doing too much. https://t.co/pqPSRvvcbZeciu.net/analysis/polli…

There's no issue as toxic for the Tories as housebuilding. Because nothing else pits their present so squarely against their future.

I've written today for @thetimes on the housing crisis. But here are the key facts (1/?) thetimes.co.uk/article/cabine… Obviously, Nimbyism makes sense tactically for the Tories. Rishi Sunak wasn't lying when he said 'thousands and thousands' of activists had complained to him about housing targets. Just look at this leaflet from Thursday.