They need London specific policy of the same kind that gets Boris elected.
I'd be careful about that. Any party announcing London specific policies will be very negatively received elsewhere in the country.
I think stuff specific to lower paid workers and housing costs would not be controversial, pretty much everyone in the country realises that London is not like the rest of the country and having the minimum wage set to £7.20 per hour and spending some government money to allow middle and lower income people onto the housing ladder in London is not going to be a big problem. Any talk of different tax rates or allowing London to keep some of its huge tax surplus would go too far. Specific help for middle and lower income people in London is uncontroversial..
How would you prevent such a policy from being portrayed thus: London has too much money sloshing around to deal with its own workers decently, so the rest of the UK has to pump even more money into it? Surely not likely to go down well.
Only a lunatic could imagine that taxing the rest of the country more to subsidise businesses and middle class in London is reasonable
Ok then - maybe London should keep more of the money it generates rather subsidising the rest of the country as it does now.
Mr. Carnyx, I generally disagree with SNP types (or Yes types, at least) banging on about the evils of London, but I do think the housing market subsidy for London would go down about as well as rat poison.
There may be a case for regional minimum wages, though I'd need some convincing, but the rest of the country funnelling money towards London's property market would not go down well at all.
This sort of thing is just one more reason why Balkanising England by carving it up into shitty little regional assemblies would be despicable. London gets more funding per head than the rest of England, but it also contributes more than any other area to the Treasury.
So, at least one side (and possibly both) would be pissed off with the funding arrangements for the rubbish regional assemblies. Either poorer areas get less per head and feel like they're funding a wealthy city, or London feels like it's contributing almost everything and getting back far less than its fair share. (It's practically identical to the way it's possible to see Scotland either getting more than its fair share or more than paying its own way).
Morris, England wakening up to what Scotland has felt for ages. London is a blood sucker, they will never be happy till all the money is there.
Hammersmith and Fulham, Labour gain from Con last night, 11 seat turnaround. It should be a solid Tory power base and the council have done a lot of good work. The issue is that there are a lot of people that rent here and Ed's misguided rent freeze or whatever it was is attractive. I think that policy announcement is what saved Ed's bacon across London last night while in the rest of the country I very much doubt it made a difference.
A logical view. It has a large rental market with massive house price increases. (A landlord in H&F)
I thought we weren't getting exit polls to avoid influencing the straggler electorates?
Yes, that's an EU rule, but the ornery Dutch paid no attention and did it anyway. I don't think it's been published in print (de Telegraaf this morning doesn't mention it) so it's probably popped up on a website or Swiss media to get around the ban, as often happens with French elections.
A curious factoid (I've not worked this out systematically) is that Labour seems to have advanced in the much of the south while falling back in the north. It's not just London - Labour's group in Hastings is now the largest they've ever had, apparently, and the Bristol and Cambridge results were pretty good. By contrast, Rotherham was far from good and there are lots of other examples too.
The Tories didn't do well either, but with less of a regional pattern, just sagged across most of the board. The LibDems seem to have shown that a strong local party can produce great incumbency benefits, but sometimes it doesn't work at all - contrast Kingston and Sutton.
Mr. F, must admit, I hadn't heard the boiling alive story. That is quite horrid.
Mr. Fett, given you seem outraged that an individual might not travel to London simply to admire its delights I'm not sure your view of London being hated is necessarily correct.
The housing policy would be a tougher sell, but the minimum wage I don't see any issues. It would be paid for by businesses, not the taxpayer. As for housing, there is a specific issue of supply shortages, the only way to resolve it would be to increase supply drastically (20-25k flats per year in London) in the £200-250k range and limit the ownership to people earning under £44k per year (basic rate tax payers) and have them hold onto said flats as owner occupiers for at least 5 or 7 years. Do it on a non-profit basis and then call it a day.
Well, there is another way to resolve it: mass building of new social housing. Can't see the Tories going for it, but it might be a good policy for Labour, particularly as you could announce it as a nationwide project.
That would also resolve a worry about MaxPB's proposals - that public money is being injected into the system for private profit (and, given the state of the London housing bubble, possibly also disastrous loss). It is one of the things that worries me about the MP (and MSP!) expenses system that mortgage subsidies encourage politicians to have an incentive to tap into an inflated housing market.
IIRC, policemen and firemen routinely had houses provided in the old days. That's another solution, for employers to provide social housing for key workers.
The problem with the key worker crap is that it feeds into this public sector, good; private sector, bad idea. I don't see why public sector workers should receive state subsidised housing as well as higher than average wages and higher than average pension provisions. A system open to anyone earning the basic rate of tax is the fairest way to do it. flats in zones 2-4 from £150k to £250k requiring a 10% deposit. Not for profit.
A bit of a straw man argument there. Does anyone actually believe the following is in anyway true?
"For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church..."
Apparently Catholic England was a place of fun and jollity, and people getting happily pissed.
Henry VIII was by some margin, the nastiest King that England ever had.
That can be argued, but it's not really germane to this argument, he was basically a Catholic theologically, hence the Fidei Defensor title which, don't forget, was bestowed by a pope.
Mr. G, as I said, that's not a view I take generally. But if housing subsidy for the vastly higher prices in London occurred it'd make the rest of the country livid.
Having heard the "success story" aka "mere flesh wound" remarks of the Lib Dem Dep Leader Malcolm Bruce on the radio this morning.... From the BBC stats of the 4 LD controlled councils counted so far, 2 were held and 2 lost. 1 to C and 1 to NOC. Both of the losses Kingston and Portsmouth have sitting LD MPs, which rather undermines the Bruce line that they are winning where they need to. Well unless they see retaining half their MPs as a win?
Maybe only losing half your body's limbs is a "mere flesh wound"?
The housing policy would be a tougher sell, but the minimum wage I don't see any issues. It would be paid for by businesses, not the taxpayer. As for housing, there is a specific issue of supply shortages, the only way to resolve it would be to increase supply drastically (20-25k flats per year in London) in the £200-250k range and limit the ownership to people earning under £44k per year (basic rate tax payers) and have them hold onto said flats as owner occupiers for at least 5 or 7 years. Do it on a non-profit basis and then call it a day.
Well, there is another way to resolve it: mass building of new social housing. Can't see the Tories going for it, but it might be a good policy for Labour, particularly as you could announce it as a nationwide project.
That would also resolve a worry about MaxPB's proposals - that public money is being injected into the system for private profit (and, given the state of the London housing bubble, possibly also disastrous loss). It is one of the things that worries me about the MP (and MSP!) expenses system that mortgage subsidies encourage politicians to have an incentive to tap into an inflated housing market.
IIRC, policemen and firemen routinely had houses provided in the old days. That's another solution, for employers to provide social housing for key workers.
The problem with the key worker crap is that it feeds into this public sector, good; private sector, bad idea. I don't see why public sector workers should receive state subsidised housing as well as higher than average wages and higher than average pension provisions. A system open to anyone earning the basic rate of tax is the fairest way to do it. flats in zones 2-4 from £150k to £250k requiring a 10% deposit. Not for profit.
There are key workers in the private sector as well. Historically, employers would build housing for their workers but that seems to have gone out of fashion, aside from informing the introduction to Antiques Roadshow most weeks.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
Not even the Bastard devised boiling alive as a punishment, or made sodomy and pre-marital sex for a Queen, capital offences.
The Harrowing of the North was more than a bit unpleasant, but you could argue it developed from the Anglo-Saxon kings' main method of dealing with local government problems.
This an interesting commentary on the success of UKIP and the complete failure of the media, Westminster politicians and the twitterati to understand it.
They need London specific policy of the same kind that gets Boris elected.
I'd be careful about that. Any party announcing London specific policies will be very negatively received elsewhere in the country.
I think stuff specific to lower paid workers and housing costs would not be controversial, pretty much everyone in the country realises that London is not like the rest of the country and having the minimum wage set to £7.20 per hour and spending some government money to allow middle and lower income people onto the housing ladder in London is not going to be a big problem. Any talk of different tax rates or allowing London to keep some of its huge tax surplus would go too far. Specific help for middle and lower income people in London is uncontroversial..
How would you prevent such a policy from being portrayed thus: London has too much money sloshing around to deal with its own workers decently, so the rest of the UK has to pump even more money into it? Surely not likely to go down well.
Only a lunatic could imagine that taxing the rest of the country more to subsidise businesses and middle class in London is reasonable
Ok then - maybe London should keep more of the money it generates rather subsidising the rest of the country as it does now.
It is not subsidising Scotland , our flow is all southward to London. The fallacy that London subsidises anybody is a joke. Take infrastructure , last figures I saw per head of population , per year in London £2600, per year in North East England £5. Great subsidy there.
Mr. G, as I said, that's not a view I take generally. But if housing subsidy for the vastly higher prices in London occurred it'd make the rest of the country livid.
Housing subsidy in London is already commonplace because of private sector social renters. This would allow people to own a flat and pay into equity and get them out of the social housing sector reducing the government subsidy. As prices and rents rise in London all it means is the social housing subsidy rises as well. Any action to take people out of the rental market and into owner occupation will cool down the housing market in London as rental yields fall and buy-to-letters begin to sell up.
Morning all, couldn't get a wireless connection last night so missed all the excitement overnight. I see UKIP have won 100 wards so far so well done them. Looking at the 3 traditional parties so far it seems like nowhere near good enough for Labour, not nearly as bad as feared for Tories and LibDem finger nails still attached to their fingers.
Good for Tories winning seats from Labour anywhere but especially in places like Swindon and Birmingham and LibDems in London. Not a Scooby on whether this means anything for GE2015 except Labour is not going to win it though it may be largest party in hung parliament. I still think it will be Con 38, Lab 32, LibDem 15 and UKIP 10 with DC back either just below or just above 326.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
The stand-out result so far to me is Hammersmith. On a night when the Conservatives generally did no worse than expected, to lose that particular council is a bit of a shock - it has often been cited as a particularly successful example of Conservative local government in action, but it seems local voters weren't convinced. So that looks like a notable bit of bad news for the Tories.
On the bigger picture and the calls for some kind of PR, I remain baffled. Suppose we had PR, and suppose the House of Commons reflected the kind of result implied by last night. What actual government, and what government programme, could be put together out of the completely incompatible programmes on offer? At the end of the day, a choice has to be made, not fudged.
Mr. F, must admit, I hadn't heard the boiling alive story. That is quite horrid.
Mr. Fett, given you seem outraged that an individual might not travel to London simply to admire its delights I'm not sure your view of London being hated is necessarily correct.
You claim it as an English city, its capital, and can't even take a two-hour train journey to check it out. Not even once in your life, even though you are in your thirties. If you did visit, you might actually think better of us rather than moaning about us all the time.
A bit of a straw man argument there. Does anyone actually believe the following is in anyway true?
"For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church..."
Apparently Catholic England was a place of fun and jollity, and people getting happily pissed.
Henry VIII was by some margin, the nastiest King that England ever had.
That can be argued, but it's not really germane to this argument, he was basically a Catholic theologically, hence the Fidei Defensor title which, don't forget, was bestowed by a pope.
Just done a WEA course on the History of Parliament where the lecturer argued the same point re nastiest king. However, undemocratic though his Parliaments were, the fact remains that the relevant Acts were passed by them. This suggests that opposition wasn’t as strong as suggested in the Telegraph’s piece, although the subsequent treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace did indicate that dissent was a risky (at least!!!) business.
BTW: May I add my thanks to AndyJS and the others on PB who have been providing a much better and more coherent summary of the results and swings than the mainstream media seem to be able to manage.
The stand-out result so far to me is Hammersmith. On a night when the Conservatives generally did no worse than expected, to lose that particular council is a bit of a shock - it has often been cited as a particularly successful example of Conservative local government in action, but it seems local voters weren't convinced. So that looks like a notable bit of bad news for the Tories.
On the bigger picture and the calls for some kind of PR, I remain baffled. Suppose we had PR, and suppose the House of Commons reflected the kind of result implied by last night. What actual government, and what government programme, could be put together out of the completely incompatible programmes on offer? At the end of the day, a choice has to be made, not fudged.
I'm impressed that you've avoided the temptations of spin to pick out a result that was bad for the Tories - always worth noting.
On PR I feel that if the public is conflicted and undecided then Parliament should reflect that indecision. It is then necessary for the country to have a serious think and debate to make up its mind which direction it wants to go in, rather than to have a direction randomly imposed upon it by the specific vagaries of the electoral system.
The stand-out result so far to me is Hammersmith. On a night when the Conservatives generally did no worse than expected, to lose that particular council is a bit of a shock - it has often been cited as a particularly successful example of Conservative local government in action, but it seems local voters weren't convinced. So that looks like a notable bit of bad news for the Tories.
As Max has mentioned earlier, I'd be fairly certain this was due to issues around housing and renting that are peculiar to London. I seem to remember various polls where the subsample for private renters was very strongly Labour.
Not sure what the Tories can do about it in the short term and since H&F and most of the rest of London already have Labour MPs, it might not have that great an effect on the GE outcome.
The stand-out result so far to me is Hammersmith. On a night when the Conservatives generally did no worse than expected, to lose that particular council is a bit of a shock - it has often been cited as a particularly successful example of Conservative local government in action, but it seems local voters weren't convinced. So that looks like a notable bit of bad news for the Tories.
On the bigger picture and the calls for some kind of PR, I remain baffled. Suppose we had PR, and suppose the House of Commons reflected the kind of result implied by last night. What actual government, and what government programme, could be put together out of the completely incompatible programmes on offer? At the end of the day, a choice has to be made, not fudged.
I'm impressed that you've avoided the temptations of spin to pick out a result that was bad for the Tories - always worth noting.
On PR I feel that if the public is conflicted and undecided then Parliament should reflect that indecision. It is then necessary for the country to have a serious think and debate to make up its mind which direction it wants to go in, rather than to have a direction randomly imposed upon it by the specific vagaries of the electoral system.
H&F was a poster child by its own creation, though; it is an example among activists, not voters. But an example nonetheless.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
Govia wins new rail franchise The Government has announced the winner of the competition to run a new rail franchise that includes the £6.5 billion Thameslink project.
The new Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) franchise will be run by the Go-Ahead Group company Govia, with rival company FirstGroup missing out.
FirstGroup had been running a section of the new franchise under the First Capital Connect (FCC) banner since 2006, but FCC will disappear when the new seven-year TSGN franchise starts in September 2014.
While Go-Ahead celebrated today, FirstGroup chiefs expressed their disappointment at losing out on a franchise which, in terms of passengers, is the biggest ever awarded.
BTW: May I add my thanks to AndyJS and the others on PB who have been providing a much better and more coherent summary of the results and swings than the mainstream media seem to be able to manage.
Me too. I always find the media baffingly bad at election coverage.
They need London specific policy of the same kind that gets Boris elected.
I'd be careful about that. Any party announcing London specific policies will be very negatively received elsewhere in the country.
I think stuff specific to lower paid workers and housing costs would not be controversial, pretty much everyone in the country realises that London is not like the rest of the country and having the minimum wage set to £7.20 per hour and spending some government money to allow middle and lower income people onto the housing ladder in London is not going to be a big problem. Any talk of different tax rates or allowing London to keep some of its huge tax surplus would go too far. Specific help for middle and lower income people in London is uncontroversial..
How would you prevent such a policy from being portrayed thus: London has too much money sloshing around to deal with its own workers decently, so the rest of the UK has to pump even more money into it? Surely not likely to go down well.
Only a lunatic could imagine that taxing the rest of the country more to subsidise businesses and middle class in London is reasonable
Ok then - maybe London should keep more of the money it generates rather subsidising the rest of the country as it does now.
It is not subsidising Scotland , our flow is all southward to London. The fallacy that London subsidises anybody is a joke. Take infrastructure , last figures I saw per head of population , per year in London £2600, per year in North East England £5. Great subsidy there.
That was transport alone IIRC - but that makes your point all the more .
Despicable High Court judge reaches inane and indefensible verdict to spit on history and consider finders-keepers a good rule of thumb when discovering dead monarchs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836
Disgraceful decision. Absolutely crackers. The Government deserves a massive slap as well for its role in this.
Edited extra bit: on the plus side I was wondering what to write my next blog about.
In an interview this morning Mr Farage made the point that the London results are not as poor for UKIP as they may appear, because UKIP were in many cases fielding only one candidate in a three candidate ward.
On the bigger picture and the calls for some kind of PR, I remain baffled. Suppose we had PR, and suppose the House of Commons reflected the kind of result implied by last night. What actual government, and what government programme, could be put together out of the completely incompatible programmes on offer? At the end of the day, a choice has to be made, not fudged.
What national shares are we talking about here? It doesn't seem like an impossible problem since the programs of Lab, Lib and Con are basically all the same and any of them could work with any of the others, and Con+UKIP (cracks bridged by referendums) also seems plausible if the voters have backed the two of them in sufficient numbers.
Putting the problem the other way around, how low would the vote share of the party winning a majority have to go before you said, "Hang on, this is getting ridiculous"?
A bit of a straw man argument there. Does anyone actually believe the following is in anyway true?
"For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church..."
Apparently Catholic England was a place of fun and jollity, and people getting happily pissed.
Henry VIII was by some margin, the nastiest King that England ever had.
That can be argued, but it's not really germane to this argument, he was basically a Catholic theologically, hence the Fidei Defensor title which, don't forget, was bestowed by a pope.
Just done a WEA course on the History of Parliament where the lecturer argued the same point re nastiest king. However, undemocratic though his Parliaments were, the fact remains that the relevant Acts were passed by them. This suggests that opposition wasn’t as strong as suggested in the Telegraph’s piece, although the subsequent treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace did indicate that dissent was a risky (at least!!!) business.
He also had a very funny way of trying to win hearts and make friends north of the Border when seeking to marry off his prince to the Scots princess. If it hadn't been for that he'd have achieved the United Kingdom of Scotland and England some score years earlier than 1603.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
Hmm but people must want to live there even though it must leave them with either a very frugal lifestyle or alot of debt...
Or overcrowding...
What's Streatham like ?
£120pppw for a room in a 3 bed flat sharing with 2 others seems reasonable !
3 Bedrooms £325 pw Lewin Road, Streatham Common, SW16 3 bedroom flat to rent; Located within easy reach of Streatham Common, this three bedroom first floor flat offers generous entertaining space and stylish ^_~
My chief point to note also relates to Hammersmith & Fulham. In 1990, the Conservatives got hammered everywhere but were able to spin their results in Westminster and Wandsworth as examples of a Conservative success to offset that. Labour have made seat gains, seem to be heading for a respectable if uninspiring seat gain tally and have had a major totemic success, yet are rending their shirts and gnashing their teeth.
Labour don't seem to have good message discipline right now.
Can one of the experts please explain why SKY is showing almost double the number of councillors elected than the BBC and totally different numbers for gains and losses.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
Hmm but people must want to live there even though it must leave them with either a very frugal lifestyle or alot of debt...
Or overcrowding...
What's Streatham like ?
£120pppw for a room in a 3 bed flat sharing with 2 others seems reasonable !
3 Bedrooms £325 pw Lewin Road, Streatham Common, SW16 3 bedroom flat to rent; Located within easy reach of Streatham Common, this three bedroom first floor flat offers generous entertaining space and stylish ^_~
Putting the problem the other way around, how low would the vote share of the party winning a majority have to go before you said, "Hang on, this is getting ridiculous"?
I don't see it like that. I see voters being offered programmes A, B, C and D, and being asked to choose which one they want. Since some of those programmes are in diametrically opposite directions - more tax & spending, less tax and spending; more Europe, less Europe, No Europe; more choice in educational providers, more uniformity in education - how does mixing up a parliament in proportion to those voting for such progammes actually help? This is not a school awards ceremony where we want to give prizes to everyone for their effort, it's about choosing what the government should actually do.
Or, to put it another way: if PR is the solution to political disenchantment, then surely everyone should be delighted with the coalition we have at the moment - which is exactly the kind of effect you'd get with PR. I don't see too much sign of such enthusiasm.
My chief point to note also relates to Hammersmith & Fulham. In 1990, the Conservatives got hammered everywhere but were able to spin their results in Westminster and Wandsworth as examples of a Conservative success to offset that. Labour have made seat gains, seem to be heading for a respectable if uninspiring seat gain tally and have had a major totemic success, yet are rending their shirts and gnashing their teeth.
Labour don't seem to have good message discipline right now.
Can one of the experts please explain why SKY is showing almost double the number of councillors elected than the BBC and totally different numbers for gains and losses.
There are different ways of making comparison between elections — for example whether or not you take defections and by-elections into account.
But I can't understand why there are any differences over simple numbers elected last night.
Yeah - we know SeanT earns millions and lives in a two-room flat in Muswell Hill; I'm a higher-rate taxpayer and rent a two-room flat above a shop in Holloway. Personally I think we should waive planning permission for lots of skyscraper blocks. The skyline? Pshaw. How many minutes a day does the average Londoner spead admiring the view?
Yeah - we know SeanT earns millions and lives in a two-room flat in Muswell Hill; I'm a higher-rate taxpayer and rent a two-room flat above a shop in Holloway. Personally I think we should waive planning permission for lots of skyscraper blocks. The skyline? Pshaw. How many minutes a day does the average Londoner spead admiring the view?
Can one of the experts please explain why SKY is showing almost double the number of councillors elected than the BBC and totally different numbers for gains and losses.
There are different ways of making comparison between elections — for example whether or not you take defections and by-elections into account.
But I can't understand why there are any differences over simple numbers elected last night.
The difference must be more than that. Sky show that all the parties currently hae twice as many councillors as the BBC.
Erm, you were the one who used the word racist. I merely pointed that you had immediately changed the metric because you had lost the argument.
It certainly came across as implying racism, but if that was not your intention, I will retract my claim there.
I had not lost the argument at all. I was merely using the closest available metric. Obviously those that are not British born tend to be of ethnic minorities to a far greater extent.
Good morning all. Well they'll be singing the red flag in West London this morning! H&F result makes me more confident of a Labour gain in Ealing Central & Acton next year.
I overestimated the Kippers chances in terms of seats in Sunlun & S. Tyneside, but they did rack up a strong percentage. If they become the main non-Labour option across the red north, will this actually be so bad? More of a concern in the battleground though, if we leak votes next year to counter-weigh those we gain from the LDs.
Does anyone still think that UKIP won't come top of the Euro vote share?
Yeah - we know SeanT earns millions and lives in a two-room flat in Muswell Hill; I'm a higher-rate taxpayer and rent a two-room flat above a shop in Holloway. Personally I think we should waive planning permission for lots of skyscraper blocks. The skyline? Pshaw. How many minutes a day does the average Londoner spead admiring the view?
You plan on legging it to Scandinavia. What would you care about the London you leave behind?
I recall some nonsense or other (perhaps Ming Campbell as a 'gangsta' rapper). It happened at about 2am or so in the morning, so the whole audience would be politically interested people with no desire for such nonsense. It's baffling why the BBC do such idiotic things. I saw a snippet of old coverage (maybe 1983) on the Parliament Channel once, and it was far better. Less gimmickry, more thinking.
Edited extra bit: just one more thing I dislike about Monaco, the weird 'nothing happens' Friday.
Read a bit on Joe Saward's blog about how a man doesn't have a soul if he doesn't get excited by the cars going through the narrow streets of Monaco. Either that, or he wants a race to have some racing in it.
Putting the problem the other way around, how low would the vote share of the party winning a majority have to go before you said, "Hang on, this is getting ridiculous"?
I don't see it like that. I see voters being offered programmes A, B, C and D, and being asked to choose which one they want. Since some of those programmes are in diametrically opposite directions - more tax & spending, less tax and spending; more Europe, less Europe, No Europe; more choice in educational providers, more uniformity in education - how does mixing up a parliament in proportion to those voting for such progammes actually help? This is not a school awards ceremony where we want to give prizes to everyone for their effort, it's about choosing what the government should actually do.
Or, to put it another way: if PR is the solution to political disenchantment, then surely everyone should be delighted with the coalition we have at the moment - which is exactly the kind of effect you'd get with PR. I don't see too much sign of such enthusiasm.
The “coalition” concept in peacetime is new. I don’t see any sensible complaints about having fixed term parliaments and making those elected make the system work.
Erm, you were the one who used the word racist. I merely pointed that you had immediately changed the metric because you had lost the argument.
It certainly came across as implying racism, but if that was not your intention, I will retract my claim there.
I had not lost the argument at all. I was merely using the closest available metric. Obviously those that are not British born tend to be of ethnic minorities to a far greater extent.
No worries. Not my intention. Thanks.
There is a massive Labour middle class vote in London – the only region where ABs vote Labour in large numbers. Most of these are British-born. London has developed an affluent ethic middle class, granted, many if not most British-born. That's something it should be proud of.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
The benefits system subsidises workshy tenants is the usual spin, although clearly in the same breath it also subsidises private landlords, and in doing so helps inflate the bubble.
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.
Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.
In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.
Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!
The benefits system subsidises workshy tenants is the usual spin, although clearly in the same breath it also subsidises private landlords, and in doing so helps inflate the bubble.
The amount paid to private landlords is now capped.
Erm, you were the one who used the word racist. I merely pointed that you had immediately changed the metric because you had lost the argument.
It certainly came across as implying racism, but if that was not your intention, I will retract my claim there.
I had not lost the argument at all. I was merely using the closest available metric. Obviously those that are not British born tend to be of ethnic minorities to a far greater extent.
No worries. Not my intention. Thanks.
There is a massive Labour middle class vote in London – the only region where ABs vote Labour in large numbers. Most of these are British-born. London has developed an affluent ethic middle class, granted, many if not most British-born. That's something it should be proud of.
Do you have a source for your AB claim? Of course it's wonderful when you get ethnic minorities that become affluent and integrate. But where I see Labour doing their strongest it isn't in wealthy ethnic minority areas. It's in poor ethnic minority areas.
Or, to put it another way: if PR is the solution to political disenchantment, then surely everyone should be delighted with the coalition we have at the moment - which is exactly the kind of effect you'd get with PR. I don't see too much sign of such enthusiasm.
I wouldn't exactly say PR was the solution to political disenchantment. I mean, there are plenty of countries in the EU with PR, and the voters there aren't generally particularly enchanted right now either. But in a multi-party situation FPTP has the potential to take it to a whole new level. If getting on for one voter in five votes for UKIP and they get basically no seats, and not much more than one voter in three votes for Lab and they end up forming a majority government, that strikes me as problematic...
I don't suppose you want to be drawn on this, but, depending on the way the other parties happen to be aligned: Majority government at 38%, OK? Majority government at 32%, OK? Majority government at 24%, OK? Majority government at 16%, OK? Isn't there a point somewhere where you'd draw a line write "WTF" next to it?
Mr. F, must admit, I hadn't heard the boiling alive story. That is quite horrid.
Mr. Fett, given you seem outraged that an individual might not travel to London simply to admire its delights I'm not sure your view of London being hated is necessarily correct.
You claim it as an English city, its capital, and can't even take a two-hour train journey to check it out. Not even once in your life, even though you are in your thirties. If you did visit, you might actually think better of us rather than moaning about us all the time.
The reason UKIP dont do well in London is that relatively few people who live there were born there, and very few people have elderly relatives there. UKIP voters are generally people who dont like what is happening to the place they knew as home growing up, but still live nearby
If your parents or Grandparents are stuck in a place they used to love but now dont recognize, surrounded by a load of people talking a different language/all the old shops have changed, UKIP voters empathise with them and vote accordingly.
My own area is full of people who went to school here and whose families have roots here.. .no one really moves out, hence UKIP will do well
But inner London is full of newcomers (British and foreign) with no roots there who celebrate the fast pace of change, and cant get their heads round why anyone wouldnt feel the same... so they call them names!!
Despicable High Court judge reaches inane and indefensible verdict to spit on history and consider finders-keepers a good rule of thumb when discovering dead monarchs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836
Disgraceful decision. Absolutely crackers. The Government deserves a massive slap as well for its role in this.
Edited extra bit: on the plus side I was wondering what to write my next blog about.
Excellent decision. Richard had almost nothing to do with York. Neither he nor his parents were even born in the county and for most of the war York actually opposed the 'Yorkist' cause and refused to allow Richard or his brother entry to the city.
Looks more and more as if No 10 will be decided by a relatively small number of UKIP returners. But who returns? The blue rinsers or the WWC? If UKIP poll (say) 14% and the returners split 3/1 either way, that's a 1% swing. Re London, well done Labour. But let's look at the maths. A nightmare night for the Tories might see all 7 2010 gains reversed, but where are the rest of Labours gains coming from? They are going backwards in most of the rest of England (momentum wise), they can't gain in Scotland, they might take a couple back in Wales. And whither the Tories? Forget London gains, it's all about defence. they will need to hold, hold, hold, gain from the Lib Dems, and maybe take advantage in places like Birmingham Northfield and Edgbaston, Southampton and the Midland towns. I can't see either party getting a majority unless the Labour backward momentum gathers pace or they lose the WWC to UKIP and the Tories take back the blue rinse brigade
This thread may well look quite funny if it is read in 20 years' time. I can easily imagine Streatham gentrifying and perhaps quite rapidly.
Balham, parodied as "gateway to the south" by Peter Sellers, is now nearly as expensive as Clapham, which in turn was sufficiently embarrassing to live in when I first came to London in 1990 that you would find professionals joking about living in Cla'am (along the same lines as Saint Ockwell). Saint Reatham is still not on the A list, but give it time.
Comments
Con 11,889 (37.40%)
Lab 8,110 (25.51%)
LD 5,800 (18.24%)
UKIP 4,898 (15.41%)
Green 963 (3.03%)
TUSC 133 (0.42%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -1.35%
Lab -1.47%
LD -12.54%
UKIP +13.60%
Green +1.58%
Swing, Lab to Con: 0.06%
A curious factoid (I've not worked this out systematically) is that Labour seems to have advanced in the much of the south while falling back in the north. It's not just London - Labour's group in Hastings is now the largest they've ever had, apparently, and the Bristol and Cambridge results were pretty good. By contrast, Rotherham was far from good and there are lots of other examples too.
The Tories didn't do well either, but with less of a regional pattern, just sagged across most of the board. The LibDems seem to have shown that a strong local party can produce great incumbency benefits, but sometimes it doesn't work at all - contrast Kingston and Sutton.
Mr. Fett, given you seem outraged that an individual might not travel to London simply to admire its delights I'm not sure your view of London being hated is necessarily correct.
Maybe only losing half your body's limbs is a "mere flesh wound"?
It's the capital of the World.
Great subsidy there.
Good for Tories winning seats from Labour anywhere but especially in places like Swindon and Birmingham and LibDems in London. Not a Scooby on whether this means anything for GE2015 except Labour is not going to win it though it may be largest party in hung parliament. I still think it will be Con 38, Lab 32, LibDem 15 and UKIP 10 with DC back either just below or just above 326.
The stand-out result so far to me is Hammersmith. On a night when the Conservatives generally did no worse than expected, to lose that particular council is a bit of a shock - it has often been cited as a particularly successful example of Conservative local government in action, but it seems local voters weren't convinced. So that looks like a notable bit of bad news for the Tories.
On the bigger picture and the calls for some kind of PR, I remain baffled. Suppose we had PR, and suppose the House of Commons reflected the kind of result implied by last night. What actual government, and what government programme, could be put together out of the completely incompatible programmes on offer? At the end of the day, a choice has to be made, not fudged.
Lab gained 1 from Con and 1 from LD
Con gained 1 from LD
UKIP gained 2 from Lab
(UKIP started brightly on this basis, the Tories and Labour correspondingly badly, but things have calmed down.)
On PR I feel that if the public is conflicted and undecided then Parliament should reflect that indecision. It is then necessary for the country to have a serious think and debate to make up its mind which direction it wants to go in, rather than to have a direction randomly imposed upon it by the specific vagaries of the electoral system.
As Max has mentioned earlier, I'd be fairly certain this was due to issues around housing and renting that are peculiar to London. I seem to remember various polls where the subsample for private renters was very strongly Labour.
Not sure what the Tories can do about it in the short term and since H&F and most of the rest of London already have Labour MPs, it might not have that great an effect on the GE outcome.
There are lots of English cities and bits of countryside worth seeing but I don't roam the realm. Not visiting London doesn't mean I loathe it.
The Government has announced the winner of the competition to run a new rail franchise that includes the £6.5 billion Thameslink project.
The new Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) franchise will be run by the Go-Ahead Group company Govia, with rival company FirstGroup missing out.
FirstGroup had been running a section of the new franchise under the First Capital Connect (FCC) banner since 2006, but FCC will disappear when the new seven-year TSGN franchise starts in September 2014.
While Go-Ahead celebrated today, FirstGroup chiefs expressed their disappointment at losing out on a franchise which, in terms of passengers, is the biggest ever awarded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836
Disgraceful decision. Absolutely crackers. The Government deserves a massive slap as well for its role in this.
Edited extra bit: on the plus side I was wondering what to write my next blog about.
http://youtu.be/hSC_RcFt0yk
Putting the problem the other way around, how low would the vote share of the party winning a majority have to go before you said, "Hang on, this is getting ridiculous"?
£120pppw for a room in a 3 bed flat sharing with 2 others seems reasonable !
3 Bedrooms £325 pw Lewin Road, Streatham Common, SW16
3 bedroom flat to rent; Located within easy reach of Streatham Common, this three bedroom first floor flat offers generous entertaining space and stylish ^_~
Labour don't seem to have good message discipline right now.
Closer to an Ed premiership and Tories further away from 326 seats than in 2010
If you have to ask, you'll never understand...
Or, to put it another way: if PR is the solution to political disenchantment, then surely everyone should be delighted with the coalition we have at the moment - which is exactly the kind of effect you'd get with PR. I don't see too much sign of such enthusiasm.
Is it entertaining and stylish ?
But I can't understand why there are any differences over simple numbers elected last night.
*MOE
Has anyone hypothecated the Euro results yet on the basis of the council election results and trends so far?
I had not lost the argument at all. I was merely using the closest available metric. Obviously those that are not British born tend to be of ethnic minorities to a far greater extent.
Had to give up watching Vine playing hop scotch. It is as if the BBC have invented a CGI application and can't think where else to use it.
I overestimated the Kippers chances in terms of seats in Sunlun & S. Tyneside, but they did rack up a strong percentage. If they become the main non-Labour option across the red north, will this actually be so bad? More of a concern in the battleground though, if we leak votes next year to counter-weigh those we gain from the LDs.
Does anyone still think that UKIP won't come top of the Euro vote share?
I recall some nonsense or other (perhaps Ming Campbell as a 'gangsta' rapper). It happened at about 2am or so in the morning, so the whole audience would be politically interested people with no desire for such nonsense. It's baffling why the BBC do such idiotic things. I saw a snippet of old coverage (maybe 1983) on the Parliament Channel once, and it was far better. Less gimmickry, more thinking.
Edited extra bit: just one more thing I dislike about Monaco, the weird 'nothing happens' Friday.
Read a bit on Joe Saward's blog about how a man doesn't have a soul if he doesn't get excited by the cars going through the narrow streets of Monaco. Either that, or he wants a race to have some racing in it.
There is a massive Labour middle class vote in London – the only region where ABs vote Labour in large numbers. Most of these are British-born. London has developed an affluent ethic middle class, granted, many if not most British-born. That's something it should be proud of.
I might be moving to Sheffield soon. Better or worse than Streatham?
Agreed. But if labour identifies too much with these voters its not good for their northern strongholds.
Is the outlying settlement of Stocksbridge cheap for a reason?
Do'h.
I don't suppose you want to be drawn on this, but, depending on the way the other parties happen to be aligned:
Majority government at 38%, OK?
Majority government at 32%, OK?
Majority government at 24%, OK?
Majority government at 16%, OK?
Isn't there a point somewhere where you'd draw a line write "WTF" next to it?
Avoid S3, S4, S5 (Pitsmoor, Burngreave, Spital Hill, Parsons Cross) is what I've heard.
(I'm actually in S4 now - work)
You'll have the Peaks right on your doorstep. Hope you are ready for all the fresh air.
http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ethnic_density1.jpg
Fascinating how non-British whites are thinly scattered across the place, while Asians and blacks tend to aggregate in certain areas.
If your parents or Grandparents are stuck in a place they used to love but now dont recognize, surrounded by a load of people talking a different language/all the old shops have changed, UKIP voters empathise with them and vote accordingly.
My own area is full of people who went to school here and whose families have roots here.. .no one really moves out, hence UKIP will do well
But inner London is full of newcomers (British and foreign) with no roots there who celebrate the fast pace of change, and cant get their heads round why anyone wouldnt feel the same... so they call them names!!
Re London, well done Labour. But let's look at the maths. A nightmare night for the Tories might see all 7 2010 gains reversed, but where are the rest of Labours gains coming from? They are going backwards in most of the rest of England (momentum wise), they can't gain in Scotland, they might take a couple back in Wales.
And whither the Tories? Forget London gains, it's all about defence. they will need to hold, hold, hold, gain from the Lib Dems, and maybe take advantage in places like Birmingham Northfield and Edgbaston, Southampton and the Midland towns.
I can't see either party getting a majority unless the Labour backward momentum gathers pace or they lose the WWC to UKIP and the Tories take back the blue rinse brigade
BBC +/- councillors ties back to nil Sky ties to +2
Wonder why the difference
Balham, parodied as "gateway to the south" by Peter Sellers, is now nearly as expensive as Clapham, which in turn was sufficiently embarrassing to live in when I first came to London in 1990 that you would find professionals joking about living in Cla'am (along the same lines as Saint Ockwell). Saint Reatham is still not on the A list, but give it time.
The interesting thing is that gentrification is not turning these areas blue. Quite the opposite, it seems.