Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview: January 16th 2014
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview: January 16th 2014
Broadheath on Trafford (Con Defence)
Result of last election to council (2012): Con 34, Lab 25, Lib Dem 4 (Conservative overall majority of 5)
Result of ward in last electoral cycle:
2010: Con 2,569 (42%), Lab 1,799 (29%), Lib Dem 1,519 (25%), Green 247 (4%)
2011: Con 1,879 (43%), Lab 1,757 (40%), Lib Dem 307 (7%), UKIP 205 (5%), Green 202 (5%)
2012:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Comparisons between Ozzie and Millie are odious.
Ozzie has a clear strategy. He is trying to get rid of what he sees as the poverty trap. He is trying to make work clearly and manifestly pay more than being out of work.
Now, you may argue that he is a cruel tory for this, wrongly victimising those on benefits, many of whom can't work, and you may have a point.
But Milli would never have done that. He may well have wanted to hike the minimum wage, but he would never have cut or frozen benefits or reformed the system at all.
In truth, labour sees little difference between the low paid and those on benefits, as evidenced by the fact that people on benefits can join Unite, for example.
But Ozzie sees a world of difference. And I bet those on low pay do, too.
Did you catch my Warwickshire reference in my post on St. George's visit to Coventry earlier today?
The Tories took control in the noughties in Trafford when the authority was re-organised. Effectively 3 wards (9 seats) were lost that were all strong Labour, this saw the Tories come back to power in this authority.
Broadheath is incredibly close to Brooklands which is in the Wythenshawe & Sale East constituency that has a by election coming soon.
What we are seeing from George is fine-tuning of the economy by careful manipulation of complex levers and perfect cyclical timing.
It's what he does for a living. Long may it continue!
Should be a doozy.
Brooklands (Manchester side and not Trafford side) is largely a council estate and Broadheath is the 'poorest' end of Altrincham.
When it opened in the 1971 (it was originally a Martins Bank development) it was heralded as a great example of sixties/seventies brutalist architecture.
See: http://bit.ly/1kEKnef
I ask because I believe TSE has done some extensive research on the voting intentions of bank computer programmers. The results of this research might well suggest the trend towards blue victories in Manchester will continue in both local elections and the Wythenshawe and Sale East by election.
That said some things do need to be recognised.
Those on the minimum wage and in work benefits will have marginal tax rates of well over 60% as a significant part of their increase will be clawed back from their benefits. Overall the cost of employing this marginal labour is being more heavily directed towards the employer who gets the benefit of it. This is a good thing but I suspect many of the recipients might feel a little cheated.
The problem will be particularly acute for those whose benefits form such a large share of their income. The most obvious of these are those who are working part time hours which are currently being made up to full time wages by the state. This is really hard to justify and the incentive to look for full time work or more hours in this group needs further enhancement.
The problem of fairly notional self employment again topped up with over generous in work benefits will not be affected by this at all. If there are more jobs around (as there are) it is time the bottom end of this scam was squeezed out of existence. A deemed income level akin to the minimum wage may be one solution.
One obvious consequence is that services provided by the low paid in cafes, restaurants and shops are going to cost more giving a boost to inflation. Given the deflationary risks we are facing at the moment and the very low rate of inflation this is an acceptable risk but that will not always be the case. There is a risk that the increase in the minimum wage will be eroded by higher inflation.
Unemployment remains a blight for too many of our citizens, particularly the young. As Nigel Lawson correctly said many years ago this is more a moral problem than an economic one. A higher minimum wage requries the marginal output of unskilled workers to be worth more. This means there must be much greater emphasis on improving productivity and in work training. Otherwise we are condemning some of our citizens to truly miserable lives.
So the right plan but no silver bullet. There is much still to do.
As have been three posts by taffys today which I haven't acknowledged.
Now we only need to house train compouter.
Shell (and I think Barclays) have moved closer to the airport (but still within Wythenshawe & Sale East) whilst Lloyds are still in Wythenshawe town centre.
Virgin Media and a fair few other Blue chip companies also have reasonable number of staff in the area, alas, the locals tend to work cleaning the offices or in the canteens and the ones ona decent wage drive in from across the north west.
Still I guess a lot of blue boxes have been dumped since then.
The Railway I guess.
Used to need a 'special knock' to get let in early doors on a Saturday when United or City were at home.
Bar staff tended not to wear too much and were mostly female.
http://dailym.ai/1atncgn
Enough to scare any stray dog into retreat.
@SkyNews: i NEWSPAPER FRONT PAGE "Osborne's £7 an hour wage pledge" #skypapers http://t.co/zlJgq9q8Lh
They seem to have misspelt Miliband...
@SkyNews: TELEGRAPH FRONT PAGE "Minimum wage can rise, says Osborne" #skypapers http://t.co/Wk6w9IInjM
That said I hope that Employers NI gets cut as soon as money allows to offset some of the cost of this policy. Taken along with the 3% pension contributions being mandated those with a poorly trained workforce and low margins will feel the pain of this.
I really would like to know why.
"Unprincipled politics and bad socialist economics.
This is not the sort of thing a Tory Government should be doing. Increasing the tax threasholds would be much more effective."
Do they not know we are all in this "left wing policy love in" together?
Another tramadol poll.
***** Tumbleweed rolls past *****
"The plans are therefore likely to lead to falls in the share prices of big banks on Friday."
Ed Miliband is, quite simply, and now unambiguously, insane. Utterly insane.
Once - energy - might have been naivety, although, given that he's a former Cabinet minister in charge of that brief, to give him the benefit of that doubt was always a big stretch. He tried it again with housebuilding - luckily, no-one much noticed. The third time, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that it's deliberate.
Labour MPs reading this: you need to get rid of him, and fast, else you (and the country) may actually be stuck with him.
Nothing like aiming high.
Can't see UKIP getting out many votes here - too 'metropolitan' in character as an area - but they will improve. Those they do take will be largely from the Tory end, so could prove decisive. I marginally favour a Labour win...
How utterly hypocritical.. the tories on here cheering it now are doing so just because they think its good for their polling. Partisanship trumping what they (pretended to?) believe in
If only tim were here to point out how they were cheering their own side dancing to Labours tune... he must be chuckling to himself, particularly at.. oh you know who you are
It reminds me of Tottenham fans celebrating a last minute equaliser against Arsenal at White Hart Lane in 2004, while the invincibles celebrated winning the league at the other end
The key paragraph in the BBC article is the last:
On Wednesday, the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, told the Treasury Select Committee that "just breaking up an institution doesn't necessarily create a more intensive competitive structure... It's not just about one aspect. You need to look at the entire business model and risk profile."
This coming on top of the slapping Miliband got from José Ángel Gurría, the Secretary-General of the OECD, on his proposals for price freeze in the energy industry, shows that he is fast losing the tolerance, let alone support, of key independent economic agencies.
Miliband's populist electioneering will force the markets out of cautious political neutrality and we are likely to see some early warning shots fired in the run-up to the election.
Miliband is either totally ignorant of basic economics and markets or he has chosen to risk the future prosperity of the country in return for short lived domestic political advantage. I suspect the latter as his behaviour on the banking and domestic energy industries is similar to that of his irresponsibility over Syria.
Labour`s cost of living campaign has completely overshadowed the macroeconomy and Osborne has finally thrown in the towel.
@DJack_Journo: Tonight's @thetimes front page: Osborne's £7 wage ploy puts Labour on the spot http://t.co/eYhdDeHtjl
Britain allowed ex-SAS officers to train Sri Lankans as Tamil Tigers rebelled
British former soldiers assisted country's security forces soon after Golden Temple massacre in India, documents reveal
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/former-sas-officers-training-sri-lanka
Free labour markets went out of the window with the introduction of working tax credits.
Osborne's proposal to increase the minimum wage above the rate of inflation will roll back some of the distortions imposed by the tax system but it will take many years to eliminate its effect altogether.
You are advocating the freedom of hands when the feet are shackled.
Firstly, no-one near the top in politics is really that stupid or crazy anymore. To reach the top you need a modicum of savvy and sense because fortunately our system has become quite adept at dealing with the real Loonies.
Secondly, individuals (even in the UK system and even the PM) don't have that much power in the country. Cabinet colleagues, rebel MPs, the press etc curtail power so no-one is actually able to do that much good or damage during their term of office.
Neither Ken nor Boris ruined London despite being pretty extreme examples of two opposing everything (as far as we do differ within the political mainstream). The UK will still be standing in 2020 no matter who is in charge.
Can I ask you on what basis you support the minimum wage above-inflation rise?
As the news at 10 stated in the second line announcing Osbrowne's supposed u-turn on this it's a policy already called for by the TUC, labour and the lib dems.
Nor is it primarily aimed at labour with the EU elections looming. This posturing is to discomfit Farage and appease those tory backbenchers who fear a truly disasterous result for them with the possibilty of droves of the lower paid and disaffected deserting them for UKIP at the EU elections.
Firstly, I am not so pure that I accept the effect of gross inequalities in market power with equinimity. The unrestrained immigration policies of the last government meant that the poor and poorly educated of this country face ferocious competition from those used to much lower standards of living on a mass scale. Good for employers and middle class consumers but disastrous for the vulnerable.
Secondly, in reality the low rates of pay are subsidised by the State, that is the rest of us, who are being taken for a ride by employers who frequently claim to make no profits in this country. If the alternative is mass unemployment this may be tolerable to a degree but there is no point at all in pretending that we like it.
Thirdly, good conservative principles of self reliance and self sufficiency are horribly undermined by a system where a significant percentage of the population is dependent not on what they earn but on state handouts. One can see why a seeker of supplicants such as Brown might have liked such a policy but it is not one that any conservative would wish for.
Trying to be nice about it I think it has to be recognised that WTC and CTC are one of the reasons that one of the worst recessions in history caused such a modest increase in unemployment. But it is not healthy. Not at all.
Gordon Brown, let us not forget, had Peter Mandelson and Alistair Darling to restrain him. There is no Mandelson or Darling left at the top of Labour now.
Blair managed to reassure both the UK population and the markets in 1997 that the economy of the country would be safe in his hands. His task was made easier by inheriting a strong economy which had grown over the previous five years faster than under any previous post war government. Blair and Brown nevertheless delivered on this promise in their first 97-01 term.
This proves that Labour does not have to pose a threat to the economy. It all depends on their the responsibility of its party leader and policies. If Miliband wins in 2015 he will not have the luxury of Blair's 97 inheritance. The global economy will be much tougher and the UK's position in it fragile and uncertain. More political power now rests with international markets and if Miliband alienates his sources of investment, the consequences will be far more sudden and damaging than occurred in earlier generations.
Miliband is at least dangerous and verging on Richard Nabavi's assessment of "insane". This is no time for a complacent assessment of risk equivalency.
The incompetent tory spinners who were roused to spittle flying fury by little Ed's attempts at populist posturing on the cost of living crisis are going to have their work cut out for them on this. Not that it isn't enjoyable watching their blatant hypocrisy of course.
Ironically it is this attitude from which we have most to fear.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable-nails-labours-crass-and-inaccurate-attacks-on-lib-dems-support-for-the-minimum-wage-37856.html
The incompetent tory spinners who were roused to spittle flying fury by little Ed's attempts at populist posturing on the cost of living crisis are going to have their work cut out for them on this. Not that it isn't enjoyable watching their blatant hypocrisy of course.
You have been munching on acorns tonight, Pork.
But Vince for all his natural unease with the Tories has taken the punishment.
History will be kinder to Vince than George is being today.
But nothing compares to Hague's self effacement and personal generosity when it comes to allowing political credit for his work to be stolen.
The team for all its tensions is working, Mr. Smithson.
You're probably right, but he should take the chance to blame it on he EU while he's at it!
You can be certain if Osbrowne didn't want to posture on this and make noises in favour of it he would have left it all to Vince. The reason he did it has nothing to do with the tories worried about lib dem voters in the coming EU elections (an amusing notion) and everything to do with trying to stop the haemorrhaging of disaffected voters to the kippers. If an effect of all this posturing is to rain all over Vince and Clegg's parade I somehow doubt Osbrowne will be overly upset, but that's obviously not the primary reason why he's doing it.
Nick Clegg was warned he would face a rebellion by Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords if he tried to remove the whip from the party’s former chief executive Lord Rennard over allegations of sexual harassment against the peer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-faces-revolt-by-lib-dem-peers-if-he-removes-whip-from-lord-rennard-9065461.html
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g187147-d777347-Reviews-Hotel_Le_Six-Paris_Ile_de_France.html
While you have the memory of a goldfish. Some of us do remember the inept spinning that little Ed and Balls would have no choice but to concede Osbrowne's narrative and that Osbrowne had "set the terms of debate" on the deficit, cuts and "there is no money left". Doesn't look that way now, does it?
LOL
Poor old Osbrowne. He can't even go a few days without some half-baked posturing and positioning that's supposed to put his opponents on the back-foot. Political positioning and posturing that just ends up sending conflicting signals and setting up ever more hostages to fortune. He is just as much an inept Brown clone as Cammie is a second rate Blair impersonator.
"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Vote UKIP!
Is there pannage in your neck of the woods, Mick?
All in all, it's a policy that makes sense. Then again, I support the minimum wage in general, unlike a lot of my centre-right friends.
Can't help thinking that out of the EU with no minimum wage would be better for most poor people than in it with a higher minimum
LOL
Poor old Osbrowne. He can't even go a few days without some half-baked posturing and positioning that's supposed to put his opponents on the back-foot. Political positioning and posturing that just ends up sending conflicting signals and setting up ever more hostages to fortune. He is just as much an inept Brown clone as Cammie is a second rate Blair impersonator.
Pork
There is no debate about the deficit or cuts. A year ago there was a last ditch attempt to call in aid IMF support for stimulus and deferred consolidation, but that argument has been conclusively won by the austerians.
That is why the two Eds are trying to move the battlefield to cost of living and consumerism. Even though the battlefields are smaller and peripheral, with the outcome of the battles less consequential, this decision in itself is not wrong.
But, if you want to win, you have to fight intelligently.
This means not proposing a "price freeze" on domestic energy supplies, allowing the government to do a quickstep on tax impositions and leading to the Secretary-General of the OECD accusing you of economic ignorance and ineptitude. A promised referral to the Monopolies Commission and a call for a reworking of taxes on energy supplies would have been cleverer opposition.
It also means not proposing a restructuring of the banking sector when anyone with knowledge of competition in banking would tell you that a less concentrated sector won't lead to lower pricing, more product competition and better customer service. As Mark Carney pointed out yesterday to the HoC Finance Committee.
The BBC article on Ed's banking proposals state Ed's claim that the creation of two new "challenger banks" will result in improvements in the price and quantity of lending to small businesses.
Let's start from basics shall we? A test question for the lefties and doubters:
What are the main drivers of the cost and volume of lending to SME sector?
It is of no consequence if tories think that argument has or has not been won by Osbrowne on Plan A, B or whatever bizarre hybrid he's moved onto now. The reason labour are going hard on cost of living is because you would have to be an idiot not to know that the tories are going to go 24/7 on "don't let labour ruin it again" in 2015. Cost of living crisis will be their response and always would be since real voters don't give a flying f*** about economic stats.
What matters is if they personally feel they are better off or not.
Again and again you simply don't realise who you are dealing with in Osbrowne and Cammie. It doesn't matter that you prefer the Cameroon solution at every turn. What matters is "will the voter believe it?" and "is it meaningless posturing?" Little Ed's price freeze pledge is still far from being believed by the voters. (not least because little Ed personally just isn't that persuasive as being "in touch" with the low paid) The voters however do want action on Energy prices which is the precise same reason Cammie and Osbrowne tried to posture on it as well.
Good luck with persuading voters that the banking sector is just fine since you don't seem to have learned a thing from the Energy price posturing. If you think the fop and Osbrowne want to be spending all their time defending bankers and bank structures then you are going to be in for quite a surprise come the next bank bonus row.