Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
A section of the BBC has been incredibly right-wing? You must let the Tory papers know, and their comment sections, as the whinging about the BBC has been particularly intense this year.
The BBC is right wing. That's why I don't listen to its crap anymore. ITV / C4 is better.
Then why are Tories still so upset at it all the time for being left wing biased (in addition to other reasons)?
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
I discuss immigration when it's relevant to the matters at hand. Be in demographic changes in London, or the release of the new immigration figures. I understand the tactic of the left, to accuse people of being "obsessed" with something as a way to avoid talking about an issue they have a terrible record on. If you really think Labour piling up huge numbers in places like Kilburn or Brixton is the development of an affluent ethnic middle class you've got your head in the clouds.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
A section of the BBC has been incredibly right-wing? You must let the Tory papers know, and their comment sections, as the whinging about the BBC has been particularly intense this year.
The BBC is right wing. That's why I don't listen to its crap anymore. ITV / C4 is better.
Then why are Tories still so upset at it all the time for being left wing biased (in addition to other reasons)?
Anyway, must be off.
The Beeb is establishment rather than right wing. ITV is for drooling morons who think Ant and Dec are national treasures C4 think Maggie is still in number 10 and C5 is John Cravens Newsround
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Labour did so well in London: Miliband's promise on rent control. I had drinks with Labour activist friends last night and they were all adamant that this was the message they heard from voters on the door: we love the Rent Thing
High and rising rents are a huge issue in London, much less so elsewhere.
The problem with this is that, by definition, the effect of one popular policy will wear off over time (notice how Miliband's gas bill boost has gone), moreover, should Labour ever be in a position to enact this silly proposal, voters will get to see the downsides, and they could be very nasty.
London is not Labour forever. London is temporarily smitten by one thing Miliband said at just the right time before one local election. That is all.
EdM supports ever rising property prices and rent controls. The sort of intellectual coherance only a PPE graduate to come up with.
Remember that whiny 'I want, I want, I want' brat who made a speech at the Labour conference a few years ago ? He was the son of a bankrupt property speculator.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
If you're referring to the sentence, "Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes." then the "them" refers to the ethnic groups Labour are piling up huge majorities among. This is basic English grammar.
Labour faces on TV seem to keep on saying that UKIP wil have a flat tax and charge for the NHS... I will bet anyone on here whatever they like at even money that neither of those policies will be in the next UKIP manifesto.
It is like saying the Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees
Farage on Labour's reaction to the UKIP success/failure in the locals
"I guess this means that Labour will come after us very aggressively in the year ahead. Well, I am ready for that. Don’t believe them when they try and depict us as mad privatisers – we are not.
What we are is a party that believes in getting better value for money for taxpayers and cutting out layers of overpaid senior management and politically correct, non-productive activities.
We will spell out plenty of money-saving policies in our election manifesto. But let me make this clear now: the National Health Service free at the point of use is something we fully believe in."
That's fair enough. Now those claims will be scrutinised. Paul Nuttal is on the record as a supporter of NHS privatisation, UKIP was advocating a flat tax just four years ago, it has said the UK needs significant spending cuts, and so on. The coherence of its policies and the sincerity of its about-turns will be the subject of a lot of debate. UKIP should welcome that.
I am sure they will. All parties change their views slightly as they evolve, I dont see why UKIP should be any different
By the way I just looked at Doncaster vote percentages in the locals. Labour 39% UKIP 32%, although of course UKIP only won one seat. Whatever they are saying to the voters there it seems to be having some effect.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
I discuss immigration when it's relevant to the matters at hand. Be in demographic changes in London, or the release of the new immigration figures. I understand the tactic of the left, to accuse people of being "obsessed" with something as a way to avoid talking about an issue they have a terrible record on. If you really think Labour piling up huge numbers in places like Kilburn or Brixton is the development of an affluent ethnic middle class you've got your head in the clouds.
Clearly you haven't been to Kilburn or Brixton recently.
Are we to believe the rumours that Ashcroft Mega is going to be bad for the Tories? I speak from a betting perspective
His last one was bad for them wasn't it? If people in marginals were less willing to give the Tories the benefit of the doubt when the economy was worse than now, it seems highly probable to me that they would give them less credit when things start to pick up a little.
I wouldn't believe any rumours about any poll. Indeed, I don't know whether he's even surveyed a general voting intention. The main thrust of the survey is about explaining why voters voted as they did at the Euros, on views of party leaders, competency, policies and so on:
@Another_richard - But UKIP believes in lower taxes for the rich. Or has done until now. It also believes very strongly in globalisation and free trade as far as I can see.
What would be interesting would be to see the development of a socially conservative, patriotic Callaghan/Healey style left of centre party, with the Bennites somewhere else entirely. I could see that doing very well in many current Labour heartlands. But UKIP doesn't currently have the leadership for that. As its membership grows though that may change.
If UKIP gives up on London it is essentially saying that it cannot win in multi-ethnic, economically vibrant locations. That does not strike me as a message of hope. It will mean it will forever be a party of opposition and protest. But, I suppose, that may be the party's permanent role. Perhaps the solution is to be an alliance rather than a party - people with very different world views united by overriding concerns about immigration and national sovereignty, prepared to forget other differences to work together on these. An SNP for England, if you like.
It doesn't matter what UKIP's actual proposed policies are - remember even Farage thinks they were rubbish - they will be drawn to the C1C2s and private sector Bs and Ds because that's where the political vacuum is. UKIP's message will be "the establishment takes from you and gives to the feral rich and feral poor, we will take from the feral rich and feral poor and give to you".
And it will get votes because of the other message, the one coming from the establishment and aimed at the C1C2s and private sector Bs and Ds and that message is "we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you".
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
Socrates always talks in terms of "them" and, presumably, "us".
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
If you're referring to the sentence, "Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes." then the "them" refers to the ethnic groups Labour are piling up huge majorities among. This is basic English grammar.
Indeed it is. And its clarity does suggest a them and us mentality. Labour makes them promises and gives them special treatment. They are not us. My understanding was that UKIP's concerns about immigration were to do with our EU membership, not ethnicity.
Even if the Tories doubled their vote, greater immigration is still clearly going to be a disadvantage for them, moving demographics in a Labour direction. This has clearly happened between the two parties in the US and is discussed frequently on here when we talk about US politics. Yet somehow it's "obsessive" and beyond the pale to talk about it with regards British politics, when it is clearly a major factor.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
I discuss immigration when it's relevant to the matters at hand. Be in demographic changes in London, or the release of the new immigration figures. I understand the tactic of the left, to accuse people of being "obsessed" with something as a way to avoid talking about an issue they have a terrible record on. If you really think Labour piling up huge numbers in places like Kilburn or Brixton is the development of an affluent ethnic middle class you've got your head in the clouds.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
I discuss immigration when it's relevant to the matters at hand. Be in demographic changes in London, or the release of the new immigration figures. I understand the tactic of the left, to accuse people of being "obsessed" with something as a way to avoid talking about an issue they have a terrible record on. If you really think Labour piling up huge numbers in places like Kilburn or Brixton is the development of an affluent ethnic middle class you've got your head in the clouds.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
The Tories have lost the plot, now using the civil service as their stupid little helpers, as if anyone would believe it , just pathetic.
You may be correct for all I know, but it has been made abudantly clear to me that I am supposed to accept that nothing any unionist says or any group that says anything positive about it, or of uncertainties should a Yes vote occur, would be believed by any sane person, so labelling this particular bit as pathetic seems redundant.
KLE4 , to have the civil service tell obvious lies using manipulated data should be of concern to everyone. It is more than pathetic, is shows clearly what a shambles the UK has become, as close to a banana republic as you can get. State propaganda is the order of the day with willing civil servants happy to comply to get their leg up the greasy pole.
If it is happening it definitely should be of concern to everyone, you are correct. My point was that damn near every single thing that anyone says coming from the No side is labelled as laughable/pathetic/appalling/take your pick from the Yes side, and pretty much vice versa. Never that something is just wrong, or misguided, or that Y is bad but not as bad as X.
Therefore, the strength of your concern does not register with me, because I cannot take anything either side says at face value as neither side does anything but label everything of substance as pathetic/laughable/appalling that I don't know if it is true or not, and the hysteria on both sides mean I have no incentive to find out.
As I have no vote in the debate, that hardly matters to either side, but I'm pretty much inured to all comments coming from the debate now as probably exagerrated partisan crap, so when something genuine comes along which deserves my concern, I won't notice it.
Have to agree , reality is neither side know what the real outcome will be whether YES or NO. For me it is purely a decision whether I want a government in Scotland that I voted for making the decisions on how to spend my money or one in London that I did not vote for making the decisions. It seems a very simple choice to me.
Labour faces on TV seem to keep on saying that UKIP wil have a flat tax and charge for the NHS... I will bet anyone on here whatever they like at even money that neither of those policies will be in the next UKIP manifesto.
It is like saying the Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees
Farage on Labour's reaction to the UKIP success/failure in the locals
"I guess this means that Labour will come after us very aggressively in the year ahead. Well, I am ready for that. Don’t believe them when they try and depict us as mad privatisers – we are not.
What we are is a party that believes in getting better value for money for taxpayers and cutting out layers of overpaid senior management and politically correct, non-productive activities.
We will spell out plenty of money-saving policies in our election manifesto. But let me make this clear now: the National Health Service free at the point of use is something we fully believe in."
That's fair enough. Now those claims will be scrutinised. Paul Nuttal is on the record as a supporter of NHS privatisation, UKIP was advocating a flat tax just four years ago, it has said the UK needs significant spending cuts, and so on. The coherence of its policies and the sincerity of its about-turns will be the subject of a lot of debate. UKIP should welcome that.
I am sure they will. All parties change their views slightly as they evolve, I dont see why UKIP should be any different
By the way I just looked at Doncaster vote percentages in the locals. Labour 39% UKIP 32%, although of course UKIP only won one seat. Whatever they are saying to the voters there it seems to be having some effect.
Absolutely. As in many other places in the north the anti-Labour vote is coalescing around UKIP. That's why UKIP has a lot of thinking to do about its policies and the leadership may well have to move outside its comfort zone economically and fiscally.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
There is, of course, another category which likes high prices - the elderly concerned about leaving money to their children/families, and/or paying for residential care when they have to move out of their homes. Strictly speaking, the latter really should mean a better quality of residential care than the bog standard local authority budget version. I suppose however those are special cases of downsizing!
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Labour did so well in London: Miliband's promise on rent control. I had drinks with Labour activist friends last night and they were all adamant that this was the message they heard from voters on the door: we love the Rent Thing
High and rising rents are a huge issue in London, much less so elsewhere.
The problem with this is that, by definition, the effect of one popular policy will wear off over time (notice how Miliband's gas bill boost has gone), moreover, should Labour ever be in a position to enact this silly proposal, voters will get to see the downsides, and they could be very nasty.
London is not Labour forever. London is temporarily smitten by one thing Miliband said at just the right time before one local election. That is all.
EdM supports ever rising property prices and rent controls. The sort of intellectual coherance only a PPE graduate to come up with.
Remember that whiny 'I want, I want, I want' brat who made a speech at the Labour conference a few years ago ? He was the son of a bankrupt property speculator.
Likewise EdM supports ever increasing green taxes and also energy price controls.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
The loss of the WWC and the gaining of generation rent and the hipster set will help wipe out Labours electoral advantage.
Yep. Labout lost its WWC vote in Barking and Dagenham. 51 - 0 was the score this time. The 4 UKIP defectors were chucked out !
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
There is, of course, another category which likes high prices - the elderly concerned about leaving money to their children/families, and/or paying for residential care when they have to move out of their homes. Strictly speaking, the latter really should mean a better quality of residential care than the bog standard local authority budget version. I suppose however those are special cases of downsizing!
True but many of them will be far more concerned about the short term issue of their kids having to live at home with them long after they should have moved out because they can't afford a place of their own.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
The loss of the WWC and the gaining of generation rent and the hipster set will help wipe out Labours electoral advantage.
Yep. Labout lost its WWC vote in Barking and Dagenham. 51 - 0 was the score this time. The 4 UKIP defectors were chucked out !
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
If you're referring to the sentence, "Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes." then the "them" refers to the ethnic groups Labour are piling up huge majorities among. This is basic English grammar.
Why is it any more wrong for Labour to pile up huge majorities amongst some ethnic groups than it is for the the Conservatives to pile up huge majorities amongst rich bsnkers who live in Esher or epsom .
I wonder if someone could enlighten me about PNS. I'm used to dealing with statistics, and I understand the difference between populations and statistics.
Your sample is unrepresentative (bad), so you need to make allowances for this (bad), This is possible only if you have information about the population - why the sample is unrepresentative for example. I understand why they use previous voting patterns and such but the assumption is that this is static. And that young educated cockneys will behave like young educated Scots like MalcolmG, for example.
Therefore the statisticians make assumptions based on previous experience of a party like Ukip coming through and having such an "interesting" media baptism.
You would have to make some very broad assumptions. Indeed some very brave assumptions. You might be totally wrong and you'd have no idea about standard errors.
So overall, am I right in assuming that it's what we used to call (with tongue in cheek) an educated guess?
An interesting exercise but only that, surely?
The model needed data from London and it didn't have it until now.
A large teapot, and three dozen packets of macvites digestives should see you thru. :-)
Actually I have prepared the following repast for listening and looking at the results: 1 bottle of Crusted Port 1 small barrel of Fortnam & Mason stilton. 1 large packet cream crackers 1 slab of Normandie butter. The above and some tea naturally, from time to time, should do the trick.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
The loss of the WWC and the gaining of generation rent and the hipster set will help wipe out Labours electoral advantage.
Yep. Labout lost its WWC vote in Barking and Dagenham. 51 - 0 was the score this time. The 4 UKIP defectors were chucked out !
The exception that proves the rule. I'm confident this GE will see Labours advantage slashed, although not yet wiped out.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
All fair points Richard. As I say, it'll be interesting to see how UKIP policy develops on this front.
''The internal contradictions of UKIP will need resolving'';
What about labour's internal contradictions? How is ed going to win back working class communities without alienating his metropolitan vote completely?
These voter groups are essentially diametrically opposed to each other on immigration.
If you can't ride two horses, you should get out of the circus.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
Lol, The fair and balanced London Treasury opinion in the Torygraph, only demented halfwitted biased Tories could try to push that one.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
Too wee. Too poor. Too stupid.
Yes, yes, we've heard it all before. But, by all means, give the old gramophone record another crank. This time it it sure to convert all those floating voters, unlike the previous ten million performances of the cracked record.
Just one page of economic analysis in a 670 page White Paper?
That didn't spell out that "some" immigration was "500,000"?
You can hardly complain if someone else is doing the homework the SNP should have done.
But we know how the SNP deals with dissenting opinion in Scotland:
SNP MSPs have been accused of "doctoring" a Holyrood committee report on an independent Scotland's EU membership.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
Indeed.
The people with a vested interest in ever increasing property prices are the bankers and property speculators - more of a Conservative voting block than UKIP I would say.
There are also those who want to continually borrow money against a rising value of their homes to fund consumer spending. Which is a very middle class Labour mentality rather than small c UKIP conservatism.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
If you're referring to the sentence, "Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes." then the "them" refers to the ethnic groups Labour are piling up huge majorities among. This is basic English grammar.
Why is it any more wrong for Labour to pile up huge majorities amongst some ethnic groups than it is for the the Conservatives to pile up huge majorities amongst rich bsnkers who live in Esher or epsom .
I never said it was wrong. I just said it showed how continued mass immigration threatens the political survival of the right.
So acknowledging that the SNP voted for the trams, while the Tories voted against, the statement "I find it hard to forgive the SNPs for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams" would be at least as accurate as your original.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
Indeed.
The people with a vested interest in ever increasing property prices are the bankers and property speculators - more of a Conservative voting block than UKIP I would say.
There are also those who want to continually borrow money against a rising value of their homes to fund consumer spending. Which is a very middle class Labour mentality rather than small c UKIP conservatism.
So what is the UKIP small c solution?
I have to say I am less certain than you that UKIP voters in Essex and Kent are going to be relaxed about policies that will have the effect of making their homes less valuable.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
I discuss immigration when it's relevant to the matters at hand. Be in demographic changes in London, or the release of the new immigration figures. I understand the tactic of the left, to accuse people of being "obsessed" with something as a way to avoid talking about an issue they have a terrible record on. If you really think Labour piling up huge numbers in places like Kilburn or Brixton is the development of an affluent ethnic middle class you've got your head in the clouds.
How much do you know about Kilburn ?
It is not the development of an affluent ethnic middle class it is the result of two seperate but related developments:
1. The ethnic vote being predominantly labour. Some of those ethnic voters are affluent but many are not.
2. The development of a white middle class labour vote which is remarkably tolerant of the above. Rather in the way that the WWC appears to be increasingly voting against its economic best interests (i.e. for parties of the right) this group also votes for cultural reasons against its economic best interests (i.e. for parties of the left).
The combination of these two phenomena (which are related but are not the same) results in Labour piling up huge majorities in places like Kilburn and Brixton.
People who assume that voters vote purely on economics are wrong imho. Its quite often not the economy stupid.
A note about the differing figures for councillors and gains or losses on the BBC and Sky websites . The BBC are showing number of councillors elected yesterday and change between those elected in 2010 . Sky are showing total number of councillors on the councils including those elected in 2011/2012 and the change between the number of councillors on the council after yesterday . both are valid if slightly differing ways of looking at the results . Both BBC and Sky are wrong in the way they have treated a few councils . Milton Keynes had all out elections on new boundaries with 6 more councillors . The Sky figure expressing changes make no sense , they imply no change in councillor numbers . The BBC figures seem to have concocted some notional figures for how the new wards would have voted in 2010 and given seat changes from those .
I found it interesting that my wife who voted Lib Dem in the locals voted UKIP in the Europeans.
She has never voted UKIP and feels strongly that we owe a debt to our Lib Dem mp for his efforts on our behalf last year - hence her vote in the locals - but voted for UKIP anyway. (He will definately get her vote at the GE).
Our oldest son who either doesn't bother or votes left of centre decided to go ukip this time, hardly the grumpy old male stereotype.
I have voted UKIP in the past but didn't vote for them this time around.
KLE4 , to have the civil service tell obvious lies using manipulated data should be of concern to everyone. It is more than pathetic, is shows clearly what a shambles the UK Scotland has become, as close to a banana republic as you can get. State propaganda is the order of the day with willing civil servants happy to comply to get their leg up the greasy pole.
I agree, it's shocking
Scotland’s top civil servant has been accused of acting like “an SNP lackey” in a fierce attack on his political impartiality. In rare public criticism of a leading mandarin by all three opposition parties, Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Government permanent secretary, was accused of “failing to uphold” the impartiality of the civil service.
The BBC figures seem to have concocted some notional figures for how the new wards would have voted in 2010 and given seat changes from those .
That's how they do it for GEs as well, I think. I recall Chippenham was listed as a LD hold I believe, when it was a new seat, on the basis of local election results from the areas now within the new seat or something.
@ianbirrell: Important stats: Ukip share of the vote was 17% on 36% turnout. So they won about 6% of total electorate. And support fell 6% from last year
All fair points Richard. As I say, it'll be interesting to see how UKIP policy develops on this front.
The really interesting development could be how the main parties develop their policies in response to UKIP. For the first time I think Labour see UKIP as a real threat to them gaining a majority at the GE. For many years the parties have had relatively similar manifesto proposals at GE. There does seem to be a general acceptance that the parties need to respond to UKIP and their popularity. Hopefully this will see all the Parties with some different policy options that actually offer some differentiation between them.
We might at last have some sort of debate at the next election.
Kilburn is part of what is - nominally at least - Labour's most marginal constituency. In practice it probably won't be next year, but it's certainly not in a part of the world where Labour piles up massive majorities.
So here's a UKIP dilemma: what to do about property prices. A lot of UKIP supporters in the south will rather like the fact their homes are worth so much and will not want more houses built close to their patches.
Whilst I agree with you on the second part about not wanting houses built near them I am not so sure about the first. Most people are bright enough to know that increasing house prices do not help them if they are not planning on moving - indeed they make other stuff like insurance hugely more expensive. If they are moving and planning in staying in the same area then unless they are downsizing, an increase in average house prices will not help them.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
Indeed.
The people with a vested interest in ever increasing property prices are the bankers and property speculators - more of a Conservative voting block than UKIP I would say.
There are also those who want to continually borrow money against a rising value of their homes to fund consumer spending. Which is a very middle class Labour mentality rather than small c UKIP conservatism.
So what is the UKIP small c solution?
I have to say I am less certain than you that UKIP voters in Essex and Kent are going to be relaxed about policies that will have the effect of making their homes less valuable.
I have no idea what, if anything, UKIPs policy will be, but considering "making their homes less valuable" is the declared policy of all three main parties there is surely a gap in the market for someone with an alternative view.
A large teapot, and three dozen packets of macvites digestives should see you thru. :-)
Actually I have prepared the following repast for listening and looking at the results: 1 bottle of Crusted Port 1 small barrel of Fortnam & Mason stilton. 1 large packet cream crackers 1 slab of Normandie butter. The above and some tea naturally, from time to time, should do the trick.
Do you know if we're going to get the result at 9pm on Sunday, or is that just when they start counting?
I found it interesting that my wife who voted Lib Dem in the locals voted UKIP in the Europeans.
She has never voted UKIP and feels strongly that we owe a debt to our Lib Dem mp for his efforts on our behalf last year - hence her vote in the locals - but voted for UKIP anyway. (He will definately get her vote at the GE).
Our oldest son who either doesn't bother or votes left of centre decided to go ukip this time, hardly the grumpy old male stereotype.
I have voted UKIP in the past but didn't vote for them this time around.
Interesting times.
My wife and son both voted LD specifically as a response to UKIP's anti-EU stance. But I doubt that they were joined by many others!! They are both Labour normally.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
The loss of the WWC and the gaining of generation rent and the hipster set will help wipe out Labours electoral advantage.
Yep. Labout lost its WWC vote in Barking and Dagenham. 51 - 0 was the score this time. The 4 UKIP defectors were chucked out !
The WWC are leaving Dagenham in droves
First past the post can mask big votes for the party that comes second. UKIP polled very well in Barking & Dagenham, but not quite well enough.
So acknowledging that the SNP voted for the trams, while the Tories voted against, the statement "I find it hard to forgive the SNPs for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams" would be at least as accurate as your original.
Where Labour and LD criticism of the SNP is concerned, I always consider what they would have said if the SNP had done the complete opposite (vide the Bain Principle enunciated by a Labour MP). In this case, if the SNP had interfered, it would have been "How dare they interfere in local democracy!" - with which I would have had some sympathy.
Kilburn is part of what is - nominally at least - Labour's most marginal constituency. In practice it probably won't be next year, but it's certainly not in a part of the world where Labour piles up massive majorities.
A large teapot, and three dozen packets of macvites digestives should see you thru. :-)
Actually I have prepared the following repast for listening and looking at the results: 1 bottle of Crusted Port 1 small barrel of Fortnam & Mason stilton. 1 large packet cream crackers 1 slab of Normandie butter. The above and some tea naturally, from time to time, should do the trick.
Do you know if we're going to get the result at 9pm on Sunday, or is that just when they start counting?
In my area the count doesn't start until 18:30 on Sunday but the verification was done yesterday. I don't know how long to takes to count a PR election coordinate the results regionally and work out the results but I would guess longer than a normal FPTP count. So I would guess the UKs results would be announced late Sunday evening.
Anyone remember what time they started being announced last time?
@ianbirrell: Important stats: Ukip share of the vote was 17% on 36% turnout. So they won about 6% of total electorate. And support fell 6% from last year
Is turnout usually 100% then?
Whats more important to note is the people you retweet have to try and deceive with misleading stats
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
If you're referring to the sentence, "Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes." then the "them" refers to the ethnic groups Labour are piling up huge majorities among. This is basic English grammar.
Indeed it is. And its clarity does suggest a them and us mentality. Labour makes them promises and gives them special treatment. They are not us. My understanding was that UKIP's concerns about immigration were to do with our EU membership, not ethnicity.
As it happens, Sadiq Khan was indeed proposing various forms of preferential treatment for members of ethnic minorities, in the run-up to this election. Parties of the right can't outbid this, (and indeed, wouldn't want to). Ken Livingstone based his last two Mayoral elections on playing the race card.
Clearly, there are black and Asian voters who reject this approach (which is why the Conservatives can win in places like Harrow East or Hendon, but there are others who will find it very appealing.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
The loss of the WWC and the gaining of generation rent and the hipster set will help wipe out Labours electoral advantage.
Yep. Labout lost its WWC vote in Barking and Dagenham. 51 - 0 was the score this time. The 4 UKIP defectors were chucked out !
The WWC are leaving Dagenham in droves
First past the post can mask big votes for the party that comes second. UKIP polled very well in Barking & Dagenham, but not quite well enough.
Yes, Doncaster too. Second in the vote on 32% only 7 % behind Labour
@C4Ciaran: The number of UKIP councillors across the whole of London, Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool combined is..
Three.
Well there are five in Havering for a start but I suppose thats the wrong type of London
Ridiculous, isn't it? Why can't people just accept UKIP did well? And even where they did not win seats they won a lot of votes. We need to stop thinking in terms of three parties in England. There are four now.
People making clever comments about UKIP's lack of councillors would look a lot cleverer if they wrote about why that is and the democratic deficit it represents. FPTP stinks.
As the local election results are still coming in, some commentators are calling it a “political earthquake”. But the facts are more complex. Whatever seismic metaphor we use, I think its tectonic causes are cultural and – unlike mere politics – irreversible. -
Kilburn is part of what is - nominally at least - Labour's most marginal constituency. In practice it probably won't be next year, but it's certainly not in a part of the world where Labour piles up massive majorities.
As far as Socrates is concerned, that is piling up votes !
Kilburn is part of what is - nominally at least - Labour's most marginal constituency. In practice it probably won't be next year, but it's certainly not in a part of the world where Labour piles up massive majorities.
No. Kilburn and Hampstead is a marginal constituency. If you knew the place, you would realise that Kilburn is heavily Labour and Hampstead is heavily Conservative.
I notice the ConservativeHome conference is called "Securing A Majority".
Nice to see someone actually talking about the Conservative electoral prospects in the aftermath of local elections where they did significantly worse than in 2010.
@SeanF - As it happens, Sadiq Khan was indeed proposing various forms of preferential treatment for members of ethnic minorities, in the run-up to this election. Parties of the right can't outbid this, (and indeed, wouldn't want to). Ken Livingstone based his last two Mayoral elections on playing the race card. Clearly, there are black and Asian voters who reject this approach (which is why the Conservatives can win in places like Harrow East or Hendon, but there are others who will find it very appealing.
I am sure there are. Just as some white voters find identity politics appealing. And Labour is always going to struggle with them. I agree about Ken. It's noteworthy that Labour London rejected him twice.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
I discuss immigration when it's relevant to the matters at hand. Be in demographic changes in London, or the release of the new immigration figures. I understand the tactic of the left, to accuse people of being "obsessed" with something as a way to avoid talking about an issue they have a terrible record on. If you really think Labour piling up huge numbers in places like Kilburn or Brixton is the development of an affluent ethnic middle class you've got your head in the clouds.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
If the non-Labour vote starts uniting behind a single candidate, in seats that Labour considers safe, that could be a problem for Labour. Not in seats where they have 60% + of the vote, but in seats that vote say, 48% Labour, 25% Conservative, 20% Lib Dem, 7% Others.
The Tories found themselves in the same bind in the 1990s, when everyone who wasn't a Conservative in similar Tory seats started to pile in behind the Lib Dems.
It is however, very good for democracy that parties should be face real challenges in seats they consider safe.
KLE4 , to have the civil service tell obvious lies using manipulated data should be of concern to everyone. It is more than pathetic, is shows clearly what a shambles the UK Scotland has become, as close to a banana republic as you can get. State propaganda is the order of the day with willing civil servants happy to comply to get their leg up the greasy pole.
I agree, it's shocking
Scotland’s top civil servant has been accused of acting like “an SNP lackey” in a fierce attack on his political impartiality. In rare public criticism of a leading mandarin by all three opposition parties, Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Government permanent secretary, was accused of “failing to uphold” the impartiality of the civil service.
Labour have never accepted the legitimacy of the SNP government. Their idea of a neutral and impartial civil service is one that shows political bias by obstructing the SNP rather than doing the bidding of a democratically elected majority government planning for and implementing the policies for which it was elected.
Sir Peter has a blog for internal use in the Scottish Civil Service in which he comments on life, the universe and everything, both serious matters affecting the civil service, and also music, recipes and so on, and one day he was making some fairly innocuous remarks along the lines of some of the Scottish CS having to plan ahead for the policy options involved, in between squirrels and opera and the like. That was what the whole structure of DT and DM frothing has been based on in the usual Unionist strategy of deliberately misunderstanding a few words, taking them out of context, and going on about them for about half a geological period. I had a civil servant friend who was not a SNP or even prospective Yes voter and I well remember how he commented on the considerable resentment felt by the attacks on the professionalism of the SCS, as well as their evident baselessness.
Kilburn is part of what is - nominally at least - Labour's most marginal constituency. In practice it probably won't be next year, but it's certainly not in a part of the world where Labour piles up massive majorities.
No. Kilburn and Hampstead is a marginal constituency. If you knew the place, you would realise that Kilburn is heavily Labour and Hampstead is heavily Conservative.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be the one talking about identity politics Socrates. "Them" as opposed to whom? Us? As far as I can tell UKIP's immigration policy is focused on the EU, not on ethnicity.
If you're referring to the sentence, "Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes." then the "them" refers to the ethnic groups Labour are piling up huge majorities among. This is basic English grammar.
Indeed it is. And its clarity does suggest a them and us mentality. Labour makes them promises and gives them special treatment. They are not us. My understanding was that UKIP's concerns about immigration were to do with our EU membership, not ethnicity.
Labour did promise preferential treatment for jobs for Labour-leaning voting blocs as part of the election campaign. It was Sadiq Khan that decided to do this by ethnic group, not me. Perhaps you can take your criticism of "them" vs "us" to him?
As for UKIP, I believe they have concerns with both EU and non-EU membership. Ideally I'd like to point to polling numbers for, first-, second-, third- generation immigrant groups instead of having to use ethnicity, but this doesn't seem to be available. However, the party that seems focused on using ethnicity to form policy is Labour.
If the non-Labour vote starts uniting behind a single candidate, in seats that Labour considers safe, that could be a problem for Labour. Not in seats where they have 60% + of the vote, but in seats that vote say, 48% Labour, 25% Conservative, 20% Lib Dem, 7% Others.
If the non-Labour vote starts uniting behind a single candidate, in seats that Labour considers safe, that could be a problem for Labour. Not in seats where they have 60% + of the vote, but in seats that vote say, 48% Labour, 25% Conservative, 20% Lib Dem, 7% Others.
Er... same computations could be made about Tories. After all, they are more hated !
There are two Kilburn wards, one in Camden, one in Brent, but both included in the Parliamentary constituency. There has been some gentrification in both, but they are massively Labour. Without them, Hampstead would probably be a moderately safe Conservative seat (successive boundary changes brought in parts of the old St. Pancras North, as well as the Kilburn ward from Brent, making the seat far better for Labour).
West Hampstead used to be considered part of Kilburn, but gentrified a long time ago.
So piling up votes in Kilburn is actually very good for Labour. That was precisely my point.
With all respect Southam, you're all over the place here.
Nope.
Kilburn is not in a constituency where Labour piles up massive majorities. Therefore, Labour needs to maximise its vote in Kilburn to win the constituency of which Kilburn is a part. It's not hard Socrates!!
So piling up votes in Kilburn is actually very good for Labour. That was precisely my point.
With all respect Southam, you're all over the place here.
Nope.
Kilburn is not in a constituency where Labour piles up massive majorities. Therefore, Labour needs to maximise its vote in Kilburn to win the constituency of which Kilburn is a part. It's not hard Socrates!!
I thought we were talking about the local elections? Kilburn is its own ward for that, where Labour piles up huge majorities, and the part of the world it is in is Brent, where Labour piles up huge majorities.
@C4Ciaran: The number of UKIP councillors across the whole of London, Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool combined is..
Three.
Well there are five in Havering for a start but I suppose thats the wrong type of London
Ridiculous, isn't it? Why can't people just accept UKIP did well? And even where they did not win seats they won a lot of votes. We need to stop thinking in terms of three parties in England. There are four now.
People making clever comments about UKIP's lack of councillors would look a lot cleverer if they wrote about why that is and the democratic deficit it represents. FPTP stinks.
Sure is
Comparing with the last time the seats were contested, UKIP have done spectacularly well, and the momentum is with us in a big way.
@ScottP also makes the mistake of thinking that Farage's "political earthquake" comment was about the locals, when it was made regarding the Euros.
I am slightly worried about @MikeSmithson's bullishness about UKIP having done badly. It is rare for a successful gambler to be so swept up in hatred and bitterness that they risk money on hope.. but we will see tomorrow.
I meant that with more opposition candidates standing, even with tactical vote, defeating somebody at 48% would be difficult even with a Sinner in charge of vote management.
If the non-Labour vote starts uniting behind a single candidate, in seats that Labour considers safe, that could be a problem for Labour. Not in seats where they have 60% + of the vote, but in seats that vote say, 48% Labour, 25% Conservative, 20% Lib Dem, 7% Others.
Er... same computations could be made about Tories. After all, they are more hated !
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
The SNP are experts at it:
Treasury sources said they decided to conduct the most “comprehensive” analysis yet of a separate Scotland’s finances after the Scottish Government’s 670-page White Paper on independence included only a single page of figures covering one financial year.........
Civil servants have calculated that Scotland would need the population increase over the next 20 years – the equivalent of a city the size of Edinburgh – because there are fewer workers north of the Border paying taxes to fund each OAP’s pension......
The White Paper suggested increasing immigration to help meet the pension funding shortfall but gave no indication about the scale of the influx that would be required.
@Socrates - I don't think Labour did promise preferential treatment for Labour-leaning blocs. But whatever Sadiq Khan says or does that does not mean you are forced into seeing things in terms of them and us. You make that choice. For example, you can oppose quotas because they are unfair, not because they favour "them".
A large teapot, and three dozen packets of macvites digestives should see you thru. :-)
Actually I have prepared the following repast for listening and looking at the results: 1 bottle of Crusted Port 1 small barrel of Fortnam & Mason stilton. 1 large packet cream crackers 1 slab of Normandie butter. The above and some tea naturally, from time to time, should do the trick.
Do you know if we're going to get the result at 9pm on Sunday, or is that just when they start counting?
The latter, I believe. It will be a long night, though there will be the exit polls to consider.
WRT Barking & Dagenham, the UKIP candidates took 28% on average (they put up one candidate in each ward), but that wasn't enough to win a single seat (they came close, but close wins no prizes).
It's possible that for the Euros, that UKIP might have topped the poll in Barking & Dagenham.
So piling up votes in Kilburn is actually very good for Labour. That was precisely my point.
With all respect Southam, you're all over the place here.
Nope.
Kilburn is not in a constituency where Labour piles up massive majorities. Therefore, Labour needs to maximise its vote in Kilburn to win the constituency of which Kilburn is a part. It's not hard Socrates!!
I thought we were talking about the local elections? Kilburn is its own ward for that, where Labour piles up huge majorities, and the part of the world it is in is Brent, where Labour piles up huge majorities.
In which case we were talking at cross purposes. I was referring to parliamentary constituencies. Brent returned an LD at the last GE as well. So for Labour piling up votes there and in Kilburn could mean an extra MP and another one with something more than a wafer thin majority.
Comments
Anyway, must be off.
ITV is for drooling morons who think Ant and Dec are national treasures
C4 think Maggie is still in number 10 and
C5 is John Cravens Newsround
By the way I just looked at Doncaster vote percentages in the locals. Labour 39% UKIP 32%, although of course UKIP only won one seat. Whatever they are saying to the voters there it seems to be having some effect.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/05/ukip-euro-voters-grabs-next-may/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ukip-euro-voters-grabs-next-may&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=574d79ca8b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-574d79ca8b-71621633
And it will get votes because of the other message, the one coming from the establishment and aimed at the C1C2s and private sector Bs and Ds and that message is "we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you".
Labour/Conservative:
Whites - 31-37
Indian - 61-24
Pakistani - 60-13
Bangladeshi - 72-18
Caribbean - 78-9
African - 87-6
Even if the Tories doubled their vote, greater immigration is still clearly going to be a disadvantage for them, moving demographics in a Labour direction. This has clearly happened between the two parties in the US and is discussed frequently on here when we talk about US politics. Yet somehow it's "obsessive" and beyond the pale to talk about it with regards British politics, when it is clearly a major factor.
And that is before you even begin to approach the fact that most people are actually concerned for the welfare of their neighbours, their friends and their relatives and can see the harm that higher house prices does to their communities and the difficulties it causes for those just starting out.
1 bottle of Crusted Port
1 small barrel of Fortnam & Mason stilton.
1 large packet cream crackers
1 slab of Normandie butter.
The above and some tea naturally, from time to time, should do the trick.
I'm confident this GE will see Labours advantage slashed, although not yet wiped out.
Oh look! Separatists engage with argument.....not!
And conflate scepticism of the SNP with 'hatred of Scotland'.....how original!
The people with a vested interest in ever increasing property prices are the bankers and property speculators - more of a Conservative voting block than UKIP I would say.
There are also those who want to continually borrow money against a rising value of their homes to fund consumer spending. Which is a very middle class Labour mentality rather than small c UKIP conservatism.
I have to say I am less certain than you that UKIP voters in Essex and Kent are going to be relaxed about policies that will have the effect of making their homes less valuable.
1. The ethnic vote being predominantly labour. Some of those ethnic voters are affluent but many are not.
2. The development of a white middle class labour vote which is remarkably tolerant of the above. Rather in the way that the WWC appears to be increasingly voting against its economic best interests (i.e. for parties of the right) this group also votes for cultural reasons against its economic best interests (i.e. for parties of the left).
The combination of these two phenomena (which are related but are not the same) results in Labour piling up huge majorities in places like Kilburn and Brixton.
People who assume that voters vote purely on economics are wrong imho. Its quite often not the economy stupid.
The BBC are showing number of councillors elected yesterday and change between those elected in 2010 . Sky are showing total number of councillors on the councils including those elected in 2011/2012 and the change between the number of councillors on the council after yesterday . both are valid if slightly differing ways of looking at the results .
Both BBC and Sky are wrong in the way they have treated a few councils . Milton Keynes had all out elections on new boundaries with 6 more councillors . The Sky figure expressing changes make no sense , they imply no change in councillor numbers . The BBC figures seem to have concocted some notional figures for how the new wards would have voted in 2010 and given seat changes from those .
She has never voted UKIP and feels strongly that we owe a debt to our Lib Dem mp for his efforts on our behalf last year - hence her vote in the locals - but voted for UKIP anyway. (He will definately get her vote at the GE).
Our oldest son who either doesn't bother or votes left of centre decided to go ukip this time, hardly the grumpy old male stereotype.
I have voted UKIP in the past but didn't vote for them this time around.
Interesting times.
Increases housing supply
Doesn't brick over the countryside.
Everyone's happy.
UKIP in Kilts.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100273000/lutfur-rahman-an-election-labour-chose-to-lose/
All fair points Richard. As I say, it'll be interesting to see how UKIP policy develops on this front.
The really interesting development could be how the main parties develop their policies in response to UKIP.
For the first time I think Labour see UKIP as a real threat to them gaining a majority at the GE.
For many years the parties have had relatively similar manifesto proposals at GE. There does seem to be a general acceptance that the parties need to respond to UKIP and their popularity. Hopefully this will see all the Parties with some different policy options that actually offer some differentiation between them.
We might at last have some sort of debate at the next election.
Cathedrals 1642 1216
Chaucer 1475 1765
East Walworth 612 1693
Grange 1150 1160
Newington 1035 2299
Riverside 1589 807
Rotherite 934 1370
S Bermondsey 1234 1464
Surrey Docks 1039 712
10710 12486
Southwark and Bermondsey. Local Elections 2014. Highest candidate votes only.
@C4Ciaran: The number of UKIP councillors across the whole of London, Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool combined is..
Three.
Early tallies seem to confirm the exit poll with Sinn Fein topping Dublin constituency
Most bets were taken on John Biggs though - with a 10,000 majority to overcome not sure why...
Anyone remember what time they started being announced last time?
Whats more important to note is the people you retweet have to try and deceive with misleading stats
Clearly, there are black and Asian voters who reject this approach (which is why the Conservatives can win in places like Harrow East or Hendon, but there are others who will find it very appealing.
South
Crowley (FF)26%, Ní Riada (SF)17%, Kelly (FG) 12%, Clune (FG)9%, Harris (FG)7% Hartley (FF)5%, O’Flynn (Ind)5%, O’Sullivan (GP)5%, Prendergast (Lab)5%,Cahill (Ind)3% O’Loughlin (Ind) 2%, Godsil (Ind) 1%, Heaney (CD)1%, Ó Ríordáin (FN)1%, Van De Ven (DDI)1%
Midlands NW
Flanagan (Ind) 20%, McGuinness (FG) 16%, Carthy (SF) 13%, Gallagher (FF) 11% Harkin (Ind) 11%, Byrne (FF) 10%, J Higgins (FG) 7%, L Higgins (Lab) 4%, Mullan (Ind) 4%Dearey (GP) 2%, Fay (Ind) 1%, Gilroy (DDI) 1%, Fitzsimons (Ind) 0%, Níc Fhearraigh (FN) 0%
People making clever comments about UKIP's lack of councillors would look a lot cleverer if they wrote about why that is and the democratic deficit it represents. FPTP stinks.
Here is Kilburn:
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=73&RPID=5865631
Here is Hampstead:
http://camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-democracy/elections-and-voting/2010-elections/twocolumn/local-elections-results-may-2014.en#hamp
Nice to see someone actually talking about the Conservative electoral prospects in the aftermath of local elections where they did significantly worse than in 2010.
@SeanF - As it happens, Sadiq Khan was indeed proposing various forms of preferential treatment for members of ethnic minorities, in the run-up to this election. Parties of the right can't outbid this, (and indeed, wouldn't want to). Ken Livingstone based his last two Mayoral elections on playing the race card.
Clearly, there are black and Asian voters who reject this approach (which is why the Conservatives can win in places like Harrow East or Hendon, but there are others who will find it very appealing.
I am sure there are. Just as some white voters find identity politics appealing. And Labour is always going to struggle with them. I agree about Ken. It's noteworthy that Labour London rejected him twice.
The Tories found themselves in the same bind in the 1990s, when everyone who wasn't a Conservative in similar Tory seats started to pile in behind the Lib Dems.
It is however, very good for democracy that parties should be face real challenges in seats they consider safe.
Accused, shmaccused!
Labour have never accepted the legitimacy of the SNP government. Their idea of a neutral and impartial civil service is one that shows political bias by obstructing the SNP rather than doing the bidding of a democratically elected majority government planning for and implementing the policies for which it was elected.
Sir Peter has a blog for internal use in the Scottish Civil Service in which he comments on life, the universe and everything, both serious matters affecting the civil service, and also music, recipes and so on, and one day he was making some fairly innocuous remarks along the lines of some of the Scottish CS having to plan ahead for the policy options involved, in between squirrels and opera and the like. That was what the whole structure of DT and DM frothing has been based on in the usual Unionist strategy of deliberately misunderstanding a few words, taking them out of context, and going on about them for about half a geological period. I had a civil servant friend who was not a SNP or even prospective Yes voter and I well remember how he commented on the considerable resentment felt by the attacks on the professionalism of the SCS, as well as their evident baselessness.
His successor makes no criticism of him at all -
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/11/scottish-independence-civil-service-devolution-reform
And this is the blog from which the Scotsman was able to find nothing when it was finally issued to the general public
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/sir-peter-housden-s-journal-published-online-1-2754697
As in so many other things, it seems to be the SNP that is best defending the postwar British social consensus.
I used to work in Kilburn. My grandparents lived in a council flat in Swiss Cottage not far from Kilburn High Road. It's been Labour forever.
UKIP 161
Tory -231
LD -307
LD were defending 734 on these declared seats, lost 307 [ 42% ]
As for UKIP, I believe they have concerns with both EU and non-EU membership. Ideally I'd like to point to polling numbers for, first-, second-, third- generation immigrant groups instead of having to use ethnicity, but this doesn't seem to be available. However, the party that seems focused on using ethnicity to form policy is Labour.
West Hampstead used to be considered part of Kilburn, but gentrified a long time ago.
Kilburn is not in a constituency where Labour piles up massive majorities. Therefore, Labour needs to maximise its vote in Kilburn to win the constituency of which Kilburn is a part. It's not hard Socrates!!
Dublin exit poll
Sinn Fein 24
Fine Gael 14
Green 14
Fianna Fail 12
Childners 11
Labour 8
Socialist 7
People Before Profit 6
Sure is
Comparing with the last time the seats were contested, UKIP have done spectacularly well, and the momentum is with us in a big way.
@ScottP also makes the mistake of thinking that Farage's "political earthquake" comment was about the locals, when it was made regarding the Euros.
I am slightly worried about @MikeSmithson's bullishness about UKIP having done badly. It is rare for a successful gambler to be so swept up in hatred and bitterness that they risk money on hope.. but we will see tomorrow.
Treasury sources said they decided to conduct the most “comprehensive” analysis yet of a separate Scotland’s finances after the Scottish Government’s 670-page White Paper on independence included only a single page of figures covering one financial year.........
Civil servants have calculated that Scotland would need the population increase over the next 20 years – the equivalent of a city the size of Edinburgh – because there are fewer workers north of the Border paying taxes to fund each OAP’s pension......
The White Paper suggested increasing immigration to help meet the pension funding shortfall but gave no indication about the scale of the influx that would be required.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10852942/Independent-Scotland-would-need-500000-more-immigrants-to-afford-state-pension.html
That works out at approx 25,000 net immigration per year.
Recent net migration to Scotland:
2003/04 18,622
2004/05 25,307
2005/06 18,822
2006/07 33,049
2007/08 26,409
2008/09 24,422
2009/10 26,075
2010/11 30,209
2011/12 12,738
= avearage of 23,963 per year
Dont see wat there is to be in 'denial' about.
Jones banging on about flat taxes and privatising the NHS in his smarmy student way... I dislike him more than almost any other political commentator
Euros will determine the narrative.
Still to the right of Britain on abortion - and corporation tax !
WRT Barking & Dagenham, the UKIP candidates took 28% on average (they put up one candidate in each ward), but that wasn't enough to win a single seat (they came close, but close wins no prizes).
It's possible that for the Euros, that UKIP might have topped the poll in Barking & Dagenham.