I think that's a point many have missed. If the Tories were in Labour's position with an impotent leader while in opposition heading to a hung Parliament with all the same in-built advantages Labour have this time around, they would have gone through another bout of regicide and installed a new leader. They did it with IDS and were utterly ruthless in removing the quiet man before he could turn up the volume.
Labour are far too deferential to their leaders. Were Ed a Tory he would have been out last year after the conferences and the sitting PM would be facing an energised team with a whole bunch of new blood once the new leader forces the resignation of the last vestiges of the Blair/Brown years.
Labour = useless.
Who, specifically, is the energetic new leader not associated with the last vestiges of the Blair/Brown years who you think would be leading this energised team?
2010 and 2005 additions. I'm not familiar with Labour's back benchers but I'm sure there are enough talented ones to lead a party behind the likes of Stella Creasy.
I really wonder if Nick might just have had enough. He has been very resilient but wow, this has been a bad few days. To lose 40% of the Councillors standing and then 90% of all their MEPs when he had made that so personal with the debates with Farage.
The next election looks grim as well. We may be in for an interesting few days.
But what would be achieved?
If they forced an election, there is every chance they would get wiped out there too, new leader or not.
If they carry on, then the new leader will accumulate baggage for the GE anyway.
Perhaps they could have a new leader, and the LDs can moan about having to be in government? Not much change there.
I am not saying anything would be achieved for the party. I just think that deep down, really deep in some cases, politicians are human too. There must come a point when as an individual you must wonder why am I doing this? If Nick is not at this stage yet I really have problems in seeing when he will be.
All very odd. It's not really that much worse than expected for Clegg. He is a fine actor. He needs to show the activists 'I feel your pain.' Of course he still has 11 more months (and hopefully more) with the ministerial car.
I'm guessing we can't see the Newark and Sherwood division.
I would hav ethought this would be close to the parliamentary constituency. At 33% turnout, say, this represents an electorate of 100000. Perhaps just 20000 more.
The percentages would not vary too much, I am sure.
One point to note: Lab is 1% ahead of Con in vote share - but that's total vote share with relative turnout boosted in Lab areas by the Local elections.
If relative turnout had been as for a GE then I suspect Con may well have been ahead of Lab on votes yesterday.
Looking at the bigger picture it was a good night for Clegg. The odds on a hung parliament have gone up. The chances of Nick acting as kingmaker have gone up. 5 more years with the ministerial car. However it's important to look sombre for the cameras. Many of his brave comrades have fallen.
I agree. Northern, good communicator and with some emotional intelligence. On the right of the party but not to the point of frightening the horses.
I feel the communication skills is vital. Let's face it, as much as we politics geeks might want it to be otherwise, the politicians' personalities do matter in this anti-politics climate, especially among UKIP voters. Burnham speaks like a humanbeing while still coming across as authentic imo (whereas I don't think someone like Chuka Umunna would do very well in this climate; he might be "charismatic" but in a smooth, false way which I don't think people would take well to at the moment).
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
One point to note: Lab is 1% ahead of Con in vote share - but that's total vote share with relative turnout boosted in Lab areas by the Local elections.
If relative turnout had been as for a GE then I suspect Con may well have been ahead of Lab on votes yesterday.
I would say the opposite to be honest. Where there were locals the Labour vote was still much lower but closer to a GE. In areas where there were no locals the Labour vote did not turn out. As usual. It will in 2015 and they will therefore do better than they did on Thursday.
Tory voters are more prone to vote because they tend to have a stronger sense of civic duty, even when it is for something as pointless as the European Parliament. It would be a mistake for the tories to think that they are only 1% behind. They have a lot more work to do than that.
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
Londoners have the luxury and wealth which allows them to be left wing.
They are generally cosmopolitan and outward looking and tolerant.
Once more it is an example of the Conservative ethos - small state free market capitalism - being a victim of its own success. Probably to be repeated at GE2015. Hence the importance of the Cons reclaiming the aspirational working class vote.
Looking at the bigger picture it was a good night for Clegg. The odds on a hung parliament have gone up. The chances of Nick acting as kingmaker have gone up. 5 more years with the ministerial car. However it's important to look sombre for the cameras. Many of his brave comrades have fallen.
A 5yr Lib/Lab coalition would either make or break the LD's as a electoral force. I suspect our politics will look very different in 2020.
"The interesting number is the 18% LD. Labour should try to get them."
As one of them, I suspect we're more NOTA. If Labour handed Ed the pearl-handled revolver, you might have a fighting chance. Bring back the Badger, shoot the real ones.
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
I went through this with other Tories after the locals, basically it is a big FU from generation rent to the Conservatives who have favoured private landlords and the rental market in London. It is incredibly tough for someone earning between £35-45k to purchase a flat without some kind of assistance (right to buy, bank of mum/dad). If the Tories want to do well in London (and other urban areas) then they need to get building flats and selling them on a cost basis to people on the basic rate of tax. 20k flats per year for five years in London and other cities would be enough to depress rental incomes enough to get private landlords looking for better returns elsewhere and free up housing, and correct the market.
The gentrification of areas is primarily because of renters, take where I live for example, Shepherd Bush, in my townhouse I am the only owner occupier and I have been able to buy because my parents allowed me to live rent free in their home for three years, plus I have a better paid job than most. A couple earning £40k per year each would not have been able to afford my flat without a huge deposit. The London property market is dominated by wealthy foreigners or old, wealthy private landlords. My generation sees the latter as a bunch of Tories and their mates who have been cosseted by the government with rising property prices and severe supply restrictions and poor planning laws for building new houses/flats. Almost everyone I know that rents hates it. If you gave them an opportunity to buy a flat or house they would bite your arm off, but for almost all of them said opportunity is out of reach, even when looking deep into the suburbs.
Well heeled private landlords aged 50-60 receiving pension lump sums have priced generation rent out of the market. This is the result of the government not getting tough on returns from the private rental sector and if the Tories don't do anything soon, they can kiss goodbye to having any presence in London outside of a few very wealthy areas, which will be islands of blue in a sea of red.
One point to note: Lab is 1% ahead of Con in vote share - but that's total vote share with relative turnout boosted in Lab areas by the Local elections.
If relative turnout had been as for a GE then I suspect Con may well have been ahead of Lab on votes yesterday.
I would say the opposite to be honest. Where there were locals the Labour vote was still much lower but closer to a GE. In areas where there were no locals the Labour vote did not turn out. As usual. It will in 2015 and they will therefore do better than they did on Thursday.
Tory voters are more prone to vote because they tend to have a stronger sense of civic duty, even when it is for something as pointless as the European Parliament. It would be a mistake for the tories to think that they are only 1% behind. They have a lot more work to do than that.
^ Agree. Labour voters simply don't bother other than for GEs. They scored 16% in these elections in 2009 !
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
Londoners have the luxury and wealth which allows them to be left wing.
They are generally cosmopolitan and outward looking and tolerant.
Once more it is an example of the Conservative ethos - small state free market capitalism - being a victim of its own success. Probably to be repeated at GE2015. Hence the importance of the Cons reclaiming the aspirational working class vote.
"Londoners have the luxury and wealth which allows them to be left wing."
I agree. Northern, good communicator and with some emotional intelligence. On the right of the party but not to the point of frightening the horses.
I feel the communication skills is vital. Let's face it, as much as we politics geeks might want it to be otherwise, the politicians' personalities do matter in this anti-politics climate, especially among UKIP voters. Burnham speaks like a humanbeing while still coming across as authentic imo (whereas I don't think someone like Chuka Umunna would do very well in this climate; he might be "charismatic" but in a smooth, false way which I don't think people would take well to at the moment).
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
Balls and Cooper are more right wing. Then they read the tea leaves earlier.
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
London is only 50% white British. Ethnic minorities vote Labour, some overwhelmingly so. It's not hard to figure out.
I think that's a point many have missed. If the Tories were in Labour's position with an impotent leader while in opposition heading to a hung Parliament with all the same in-built advantages Labour have this time around, they would have gone through another bout of regicide and installed a new leader. They did it with IDS and were utterly ruthless in removing the quiet man before he could turn up the volume.
Labour are far too deferential to their leaders. Were Ed a Tory he would have been out last year after the conferences and the sitting PM would be facing an energised team with a whole bunch of new blood once the new leader forces the resignation of the last vestiges of the Blair/Brown years.
Labour = useless.
Who, specifically, is the energetic new leader not associated with the last vestiges of the Blair/Brown years who you think would be leading this energised team?
One point to note: Lab is 1% ahead of Con in vote share - but that's total vote share with relative turnout boosted in Lab areas by the Local elections.
If relative turnout had been as for a GE then I suspect Con may well have been ahead of Lab on votes yesterday.
I would say the opposite to be honest. Where there were locals the Labour vote was still much lower but closer to a GE. In areas where there were no locals the Labour vote did not turn out. As usual. It will in 2015 and they will therefore do better than they did on Thursday.
Tory voters are more prone to vote because they tend to have a stronger sense of civic duty, even when it is for something as pointless as the European Parliament. It would be a mistake for the tories to think that they are only 1% behind. They have a lot more work to do than that.
^ Agree. Labour voters simply don't bother other than for GEs. They scored 16% in these elections in 2009 !
Even that Election winning maestro, A. Blair never won an Euro.
My generation sees the latter as a bunch of Tories and their mates who have been cosseted by the government with rising property prices and severe supply restrictions and poor planning laws for building new houses/flats. Almost everyone I know that rents hates it. If you gave them an opportunity to buy a flat or house they would bite your arm off, but for almost all of them said opportunity is out of reach, even when looking deep into the suburbs.
Well heeled private landlords aged 50-60 receiving pension lump sums have priced generation rent out of the market. This is the result of the government not getting tough on returns from the private rental sector and if the Tories don't do anything soon, they can kiss goodbye to having any presence in London outside of a few very wealthy areas, which will be islands of blue in a sea of red.
Except it was Labour's credit bubble that caused much of the house price "crisis". So why are they blaming the Tories?
I agree. Northern, good communicator and with some emotional intelligence. On the right of the party but not to the point of frightening the horses.
I feel the communication skills is vital. Let's face it, as much as we politics geeks might want it to be otherwise, the politicians' personalities do matter in this anti-politics climate, especially among UKIP voters. Burnham speaks like a humanbeing while still coming across as authentic imo (whereas I don't think someone like Chuka Umunna would do very well in this climate; he might be "charismatic" but in a smooth, false way which I don't think people would take well to at the moment).
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
His rep is tarnished over the Stafford hopsital disaster and this would be thrown at him constantly
Cruddas is the only Lab politician who appeals to Kippers other than Frank Field IMO
"The interesting number is the 18% LD. Labour should try to get them."
As one of them, I suspect we're more NOTA. If Labour handed Ed the pearl-handled revolver, you might have a fighting chance. Bring back the Badger, shoot the real ones.
If Labour handed Ed the pearl-handled revolver, he'd try and shoot Nick Clegg, and miss.
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
the BBC version of reality isn't true
1. People don't just vote for economic reasons- It isn't always the economy stupid. They vote for cultural reasons as well. This works in the Conservatives' and now UKIP's favour outside London but against them in London where the culture is completely different- university educated, ethnically diverse etc. etc.
2. If, however, you are looking for an economic reason housing is your answer. Yes, the place is unbelievably rich and getting richer but young professionals on quite high incomes don't have a hope of owning a house there and are becoming increasingly desperate about it. They want to start families but can't.
3. Boris overcame these problems thanks to three reasons: a) when he was elected and reelected the housing problem was not so acute. b) He was fortunate in his opponent- Livingstone had become too left-wing for centrist, socially liberal but still very capitalist London. c) Sheer personality. Farage has an appealing personality but is much more of a Marmite figure than Boris (who if he was a spread would probably be Nutella- sweet and delicious but will ultimately make you sick if over-consumed).
Communication skills matter, both Blair and Wilson had these while Miliband does not.
Burnham is fairly middle of the road in Labour, and has some interesting ideas. I like his proposal to integrate health and social care, with oversight by councillors. It is a very different perspective to Milibands central command and control solutions.
I am a Liz Kendal fan also, but she is more one for the future.
I agree. Northern, good communicator and with some emotional intelligence. On the right of the party but not to the point of frightening the horses.
I feel the communication skills is vital. Let's face it, as much as we politics geeks might want it to be otherwise, the politicians' personalities do matter in this anti-politics climate, especially among UKIP voters. Burnham speaks like a humanbeing while still coming across as authentic imo (whereas I don't think someone like Chuka Umunna would do very well in this climate; he might be "charismatic" but in a smooth, false way which I don't think people would take well to at the moment).
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on tran
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
I went through this with other Tories after the locals, basically it is a big FU from generation rent to the Conservatives who have favoured private landlords and the rental market in London. It is incredibly tough for someone earning between £35-45k to purchase a flat without some kind of assistance (right to buy, bank of mum/dad). If the Tories want to do well in London (and other urban areas) then they need to get building flats and selling them on a cost basis to people on the basic rate of tax. 20k flats per year for five years in London and other cities would be enough to depress rental incomes enough to get private landlords looking for better returns elsewhere and free up housing, and correct the market.
The gentrification of areas is primarily because of renters, take where I live for example, Shepherd Bush, in my townhouse I am the only owner occupier and I have been able to buy because my parents allowed me to live rent free in their home for three years, plus I have a better paid job than most. A couple earning £40k per year each would not have been able to afford my flat without a huge deposit. The London property market is dominated by wealthy foreigners or old, wealthy private landlords. My generation sees the latter as a bunch of Tories and their mates who have been cosseted by the government with rising property prices and severe supply restrictions and poor planning laws for building new houses/flats. Almost everyone I know that rents hates it. If you gave them an opportunity to buy a flat or house they would bite your arm off, but for almost all of them said opportunity is out of reach, even when looking deep into the suburbs.
Well heeled private landlords aged 50-60 receiving pension lump sums have priced generation rent out of the market. This is the result of the government not getting tough on returns from the private rental sector and if the Tories don't do anything soon, they can kiss goodbye to having any presence in London outside of a few very wealthy areas, which will be islands of blue in a sea of red.
Makes sense but (and I generally dislike it when people do this..) Lab had a long time to sort this out with both Tone and Ken. Do all the nurses and firemen and even young office workers remember that? Or did all those problems you highlight begin in May 2015 or with Boris?
As a tory supporter I find the London effect bewildering. It is the fastest growing, richest and most clearly capitalist part of the country where you might think more than most would understand the absurdity of Ed's anti-market nonsense.
They are indulged with extremely high levels of public spending, especially on transport but still pay more than enough tax to justify it. They have a tory mayor. And yet Labour get ever stronger there. Weird.
From the GE point of view I think the tories can draw comfort that a significant part of any Labour advance is going to pile up in safe seats there where it cannot do any harm but the failure to make progress into these supposedly gentrified areas is baffling.
London is, in my view, where the future of this country is being forged. That it seems to be a Labour dominated future is a concern.
the BBC version of reality isn't true
1. People don't just vote for economic reasons- It isn't always the economy stupid. They vote for cultural reasons as well. This works in the Conservatives' and now UKIP's favour outside London but against them in London where the culture is completely different- university educated, ethnically diverse etc. etc.
2. If, however, you are looking for an economic reason housing is your answer. Yes, the place is unbelievably rich and getting richer but young professionals on quite high incomes don't have a hope of owning a house there and are becoming increasingly desperate about it. They want to start families but can't.
3. Boris overcame these problems thanks to three reasons: a) when he was elected and reelected the housing problem was not so acute. b) He was fortunate in his opponent- Livingstone had become too left-wing for centrist, socially liberal but still very capitalist London. c) Sheer personality. Farage has an appealing personality but is much more of a Marmite figure than Boris (who if he was a spread would probably be Nutella- sweet and delicious but will ultimately make you sick if over-consumed).
If the BBC told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then there would be nothing bewildering about the results except why it took so long.
The Guardian put it tartly but correctly this morning. Labour knew what it voted for when it voted for Ed Miliband, which was to make it comfortable and to avoid having to compromise with the middle ground. It shouldn't complain that it is getting exactly what it voted for.
I went through this with other Tories after the locals, basically it is a big FU from generation rent to the Conservatives who have favoured private landlords and the rental market in London. (snip) The gentrification of areas is primarily because of renters, take where I live for example, Shepherd Bush, in my townhouse I am the only owner occupier and I have been able to buy because my parents allowed me to live rent free in their home for three years, plus I have a better paid job than most. A couple earning £40k per year each would not have been able to afford my flat without a huge deposit. The London property market is dominated by wealthy foreigners or old, wealthy private landlords. My generation sees the latter as a bunch of Tories and their mates who have been cosseted by the government with rising property prices and severe supply restrictions and poor planning laws for building new houses/flats. Almost everyone I know that rents hates it. If you gave them an opportunity to buy a flat or house they would bite your arm off, but for almost all of them said opportunity is out of reach, even when looking deep into the suburbs.
Well heeled private landlords aged 50-60 receiving pension lump sums have priced generation rent out of the market. This is the result of the government not getting tough on returns from the private rental sector and if the Tories don't do anything soon, they can kiss goodbye to having any presence in London outside of a few very wealthy areas, which will be islands of blue in a sea of red.
Generation rent is admittedly the best explanation I have seen for this phenomenon. Too many people are being excluded from the economic success of their own city. Wealth is being concentrated to an almost Edwardian level. QE has played a significant part in this. The inflation of asset values at a time of falling real incomes has exaggerated the trends in London even more than the rest of the country where the increase in the value of assets has been significantly less marked.
I also suspect that Londoners are really quite hostile to the kind of immigration controls that many in the rest of the country see as desirable, if only because such a large percentage of them are immigrants. It will be interesting to see if the next generation who are vested in the status quo have the same views.
Making London work for Londoners really has to be a government priority. In dealing with it many of the other problems in our economy will be dealt with too.
London is a left wing city because it is a city of young people and much less white than most of Britain. Both of these groups are much less likely to vote Conservative.
By comparison with the Core Cities, it is striking how well the Conservatives do in London.
I also suspect that Londoners are really quite hostile to the kind of immigration controls that many in the rest of the country see as desirable, if only because such a large percentage of them are immigrants. It will be interesting to see if the next generation who are vested in the status quo have the same views.
Anecdotally I know some immigrants in London who voted for UKIP to 'protect British values'.
I still think Newark will be comfortable for the Tories. The only way I can see UKIP winning is if they can get the message across that the election is similar to the Euros - it won't change the government - and so people feel secure giving the Tories a kicking.
I went through this with other Tories after the locals, basically it is a big FU from generation rent to the Conservatives who have favoured private landlords and the rental market in London. (snip) The gentrification of areas is primarily because of renters, take where I live for example, Shepherd Bush, in my townhouse I am the only owner occupier and I have been able to buy because my parents allowed me to live rent free in their home for three years, plus I have a better paid job than most. A couple earning £40k per year each would not have been able to afford my flat without a huge deposit. The London property market is dominated by wealthy foreigners or old, wealthy private landlords. My generation sees the latter as a bunch of Tories and their mates who have been cosseted by the government with rising property prices and severe supply restrictions and poor planning laws for building new houses/flats. Almost everyone I know that rents hates it. If you gave them an opportunity to buy a flat or house they would bite your arm off, but for almost all of them said opportunity is out of reach, even when looking deep into the suburbs.
Well heeled private landlords aged 50-60 receiving pension lump sums have priced generation rent out of the market. This is the result of the government not getting tough on returns from the private rental sector and if the Tories don't do anything soon, they can kiss goodbye to having any presence in London outside of a few very wealthy areas, which will be islands of blue in a sea of red.
Generation rent is admittedly the best explanation I have seen for this phenomenon. Too many people are being excluded from the economic success of their own city. Wealth is being concentrated to an almost Edwardian level. QE has played a significant part in this. The inflation of asset values at a time of falling real incomes has exaggerated the trends in London even more than the rest of the country where the increase in the value of assets has been significantly less marked.
I also suspect that Londoners are really quite hostile to the kind of immigration controls that many in the rest of the country see as desirable, if only because such a large percentage of them are immigrants. It will be interesting to see if the next generation who are vested in the status quo have the same views.
Making London work for Londoners really has to be a government priority. In dealing with it many of the other problems in our economy will be dealt with too.
If the BBC told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then there would be nothing bewildering about the results except why it took so long.
And if the national newspapers told the truth, UKIP would only have got half the votes they did get.
An interesting sidenote to the elections: after all the talk about how the Lib Dems were getting smashed to the greatest extent in Scotland, that was actually the region where they had the SMALLEST fall yesterday.
An interesting sidenote to the elections: after all the talk about how the Lib Dems were getting smashed to the greatest extent in Scotland, that was actually the region where they had the SMALLEST fall yesterday.
And ahead of their tallies in recent opinion polls. I thought the Scottish result actually augured better for the Lib Dems than I had been expecting in advance.
London is a left wing city because it is a city of young people and much less white than most of Britain. Both of these groups are much less likely to vote Conservative.
By comparison with the Core Cities, it is striking how well the Conservatives do in London.
Well I suppose if you compare it to Manchester, another City on the up where Labour are even more dominant. Did I see that there are now no councillors left there other than Labour and an independent socialist? Mindboggling. No wonder the BBC feel so at home.
In 2009 the Conservatives had a 12% lead over Labour in the euro elections. In the GE they had a 7.2% lead. There was therefore a swing of 2.4% towards the governing party in the last year.
If this were repeated this time (given Labour had a 1.5% lead over the Conservatives) it would result in a Conservative lead of 3.3% nationally.
I then put this into Anthony Wells' swingometer using the figures Con 35% (based on a strong UKIP vote that is likely to stick to some degree in the GE), Lab 31.7%, LDs 14% (based on a slight uptick as local organising comes into play).
The result in seats on those figures would be Con 294 Lab 293 LD 34, Others 29.
That would certainly be an interesting result. It would mean that despite the LDs being punished severely by the electorate they would actually (just) hold the balance of power.
Con + LD 328 Lab + LD 327
What would the LDs do? Carrying on in government would likely continue to hollow out the party. Would there be a split in the LDs on which coalition party to go with? How long would a new Coalition government last given the tiny majority they would have?
The reality is that a hung parliament is seeming increasingly likely and one where even a new coalition may struggle to get a majority.
In my view nobody can claim for certain what the outcome is likely to be - it is still wide open.
I agree. Northern, good communicator and with some emotional intelligence. On the right of the party but not to the point of frightening the horses.
I feel the communication skills is vital. Let's face it, as much as we politics geeks might want it to be otherwise, the politicians' personalities do matter in this anti-politics climate, especially among UKIP voters. Burnham speaks like a humanbeing while still coming across as authentic imo (whereas I don't think someone like Chuka Umunna would do very well in this climate; he might be "charismatic" but in a smooth, false way which I don't think people would take well to at the moment).
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
His rep is tarnished over the Stafford hopsital disaster and this would be thrown at him constantly
Cruddas is the only Lab politician who appeals to Kippers other than Frank Field IMO
If the BBC told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then there would be nothing bewildering about the results except why it took so long.
And if the national newspapers told the truth, UKIP would only have got half the votes they did get.
If the national papers told the *full* truth Ukip vote would double.
Makes sense but (and I generally dislike it when people do this..) Lab had a long time to sort this out with both Tone and Ken. Do all the nurses and firemen and even young office workers remember that? Or did all those problems you highlight begin in May 2015 or with Boris?
Fair point.
The problem has been getting ever more acute and may now have reached a tipping point. The Labour govt did introduce some quite generous housing schemes for "key workers" (which have been now discontinued but which made ameliorated the situation for some of those you describe). These were of course grossly unfair on private sector earners on similar salaries but there you are.
QE and low interest rates have aggravated the situation since 2010.
As has the continued lack of house-building- the demand overhang just builds up and builds up.
Anecdote alert. Spent yesterday drinking with a friend from the Newark constituency. Not a UKIP voter or sympathiser. His prediction "UKIP will p*ss it. All the women at my work usually vote Tory and are going UKIP. All of them"
London is a left wing city because it is a city of young people and much less white than most of Britain. Both of these groups are much less likely to vote Conservative.
By comparison with the Core Cities, it is striking how well the Conservatives do in London.
Well I suppose if you compare it to Manchester, another City on the up where Labour are even more dominant. Did I see that there are now no councillors left there other than Labour and an independent socialist? Mindboggling. No wonder the BBC feel so at home.
Labour does well in large cities. It's been a while since I have gauchely linked to my own words, but here goes:
Interesting interview with Nick Clegg. The words are defiant, but the body language is anything but. Appears wounded.
I heard him basically saying "I'll soldier on if you want me to, guys....." Ball in the court of the men in (yellow?) suits.
I still don't see the Libdems being listened to by the electorate whilst Clegg is there. It may just be Clegg's misfortune to be in charge when the box was opened on the Schrödinger's cat that had been the LibDems. But that is a fundamental structural failure in a party trying to be all things to all men and positioning itself for a role in a Coalition Govt.. Be careful what you wish for.
Ironically, there is a risk that UKIP may now have taken on this Schrödinger's cat mantle, when it has to take positions and is consequently being seen to be compromised: when they start having to be FOR something and no longer AGAINST everything.
Actually, I've got an old(ish) book about King Arthur and his knights (just over 100 years or so old and not in great shape, alas), and my favourite tale was that of Gareth and Lynette. Sir Gareth fights a Black Knight (and a Red Knight, and a Green Knight).
A couple of other quick points. Most analysis has been on whether Labour can win a majority. But in terms of the Conservatives winning one the Ashcroft Tory / Lib Dem marginals poll is going to be absolutely crucial.
The clearest finding from his poll was about the Labour held ultra marginals showing that the swing to Labour was about 1.5% higher than nationally. This would mean that to win these seats the Conservatives will need a national lead over Labour of 9 or 10%. That seems highly unlikely. Therefore the only likely route to a majority is through Lib Dem seats.
But to win 20 seats against the Lib Dems seems like a tall order. They can do it on a swing of 5% but we all know that the Lib Dems will likely outperform in at least some of those marginals.
Therefore the chances of a Conservative majority still seem remote even though Labour one is starting to look equally remote. Instead what should I think be favourite is the Conservatives winning most seats. And of course that could be enough for them to remain in government.
I agree. Northern, good communicator and with some emotional intelligence. On the right of the party but not to the point of frightening the horses.
I feel the communication skills is vital. Let's face it, as much as we politics geeks might want it to be otherwise, the politicians' personalities do matter in this anti-politics climate, especially among UKIP voters. Burnham speaks like a humanbeing while still coming across as authentic imo (whereas I don't think someone like Chuka Umunna would do very well in this climate; he might be "charismatic" but in a smooth, false way which I don't think people would take well to at the moment).
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
His rep is tarnished over the Stafford hopsital disaster and this would be thrown at him constantly
Cruddas is the only Lab politician who appeals to Kippers other than Frank Field IMO
My concern about Burnham and Stafford is not that he was in charge at the time but the determination that the previous government showed in trying to cover it up and the repeated refusals of obviously required inquiries which, for once, will hopefully make a difference in the culture of what is and is not acceptable in the NHS.
That said I agree he is by far the most human of the Labour leadership. I was impressed with his contributions to Hillsborough and I agree that his ideas of more integrated services for the NHS and other care services sounds a sensible way forward.
I fear he is a little lightweight but he would be an improvement on Ed. My mother in law, a life long Labour supporter, voted for him which I found interesting.
I also suspect that Londoners are really quite hostile to the kind of immigration controls that many in the rest of the country see as desirable, if only because such a large percentage of them are immigrants. It will be interesting to see if the next generation who are vested in the status quo have the same views.
Anecdotally I know some immigrants in London who voted for UKIP to 'protect British values'.
........political differences between Scotland and her southern neighbour are much exaggerated; that it suits those who seek the break-up of Britain to perpetuate such exaggeration; and that arguments seeking to set Scotland up as if it is some sort of northern cure for English diseases are both deluded and dangerous. A major element of SNP strategy unravelled this weekend. Unionists can surely welcome this without for a moment endorsing either the policies or the personnel of the wretched UKIP.
It is just as much and just as dangerous exaggeration to minimise those differences. If you look at the figures, a rise in the vote from about 6% (IIRC) to 10% is hardly seismic - especially as it presumably was partly accounted for by the 1.5% fall in the BNP vote. It's certainly not trivial, especially as it gained UKIP a seat, but a rise of 2.5% points in the extremist right wing vote suggests that the overall distribution of voter sentiment is not quite the sea change the Prof implies. I seem to recall that he has very definite partisan views ...
To put forward stuff like this is a bit like a Tory sneering that a small dogfish is biting the SNP opponent on the thumb while he's being devoured by a Great White shark. It's true that dogfishes can have a nasty bite and that they can grow, but they aren't as big as Great Whites.
Comments
The percentages would not vary too much, I am sure.
If relative turnout had been as for a GE then I suspect Con may well have been ahead of Lab on votes yesterday.
I think we might have talked about it before, but I don't agree Andy's on the right of the party, though. He's authoritarian on crime and immigration, but by all accounts he's been one of the leading leftwing voices in the shadow cabinet on the economy and spending. Which, again, I feel is a good stance to win over the Kippers.
UKIP - 10027 ( 32.44% )
CON - 9641 ( 31.19% )
LAB - 6601( 21.36% 0
LD - 1889 ( 6.11% )
GRN - 1513 ( 4.90% )
Total - 30910
The actual result could be close to this. I think some more Labour voters will vote UKIP.
Tory voters are more prone to vote because they tend to have a stronger sense of civic duty, even when it is for something as pointless as the European Parliament. It would be a mistake for the tories to think that they are only 1% behind. They have a lot more work to do than that.
They are generally cosmopolitan and outward looking and tolerant.
Once more it is an example of the Conservative ethos - small state free market capitalism - being a victim of its own success. Probably to be repeated at GE2015. Hence the importance of the Cons reclaiming the aspirational working class vote.
"The interesting number is the 18% LD. Labour should try to get them."
As one of them, I suspect we're more NOTA. If Labour handed Ed the pearl-handled revolver, you might have a fighting chance. Bring back the Badger, shoot the real ones.
'A man who has aged five years in twenty four hours.
http://www.veooz.com/photos/SHDFzyD.html
The gentrification of areas is primarily because of renters, take where I live for example, Shepherd Bush, in my townhouse I am the only owner occupier and I have been able to buy because my parents allowed me to live rent free in their home for three years, plus I have a better paid job than most. A couple earning £40k per year each would not have been able to afford my flat without a huge deposit. The London property market is dominated by wealthy foreigners or old, wealthy private landlords. My generation sees the latter as a bunch of Tories and their mates who have been cosseted by the government with rising property prices and severe supply restrictions and poor planning laws for building new houses/flats. Almost everyone I know that rents hates it. If you gave them an opportunity to buy a flat or house they would bite your arm off, but for almost all of them said opportunity is out of reach, even when looking deep into the suburbs.
Well heeled private landlords aged 50-60 receiving pension lump sums have priced generation rent out of the market. This is the result of the government not getting tough on returns from the private rental sector and if the Tories don't do anything soon, they can kiss goodbye to having any presence in London outside of a few very wealthy areas, which will be islands of blue in a sea of red.
lol
Except it was Labour's credit bubble that caused much of the house price "crisis". So why are they blaming the Tories?
Cruddas is the only Lab politician who appeals to Kippers other than Frank Field IMO
I am celebrating with the best of you.
Even got my old jackboots out of the attic for a bit of spit and polish.
But aren't you struck by the similarity of the campaign messaging and tactics of the NDP and UKIP?
2. If, however, you are looking for an economic reason housing is your answer. Yes, the place is unbelievably rich and getting richer but young professionals on quite high incomes don't have a hope of owning a house there and are becoming increasingly desperate about it. They want to start families but can't.
3. Boris overcame these problems thanks to three reasons:
a) when he was elected and reelected the housing problem was not so acute.
b) He was fortunate in his opponent- Livingstone had become too left-wing for centrist, socially liberal but still very capitalist London.
c) Sheer personality. Farage has an appealing personality but is much more of a Marmite figure than Boris (who if he was a spread would probably be Nutella- sweet and delicious but will ultimately make you sick if over-consumed).
Burnham is fairly middle of the road in Labour, and has some interesting ideas. I like his proposal to integrate health and social care, with oversight by councillors. It is a very different perspective to Milibands central command and control solutions.
I am a Liz Kendal fan also, but she is more one for the future.
I also suspect that Londoners are really quite hostile to the kind of immigration controls that many in the rest of the country see as desirable, if only because such a large percentage of them are immigrants. It will be interesting to see if the next generation who are vested in the status quo have the same views.
Making London work for Londoners really has to be a government priority. In dealing with it many of the other problems in our economy will be dealt with too.
By comparison with the Core Cities, it is striking how well the Conservatives do in London.
But I think that might be an ask too far.
Mr. Jonathan, only a flesh wound!
In 2009 the Conservatives had a 12% lead over Labour in the euro elections. In the GE they had a 7.2% lead. There was therefore a swing of 2.4% towards the governing party in the last year.
If this were repeated this time (given Labour had a 1.5% lead over the Conservatives) it would result in a Conservative lead of 3.3% nationally.
I then put this into Anthony Wells' swingometer using the figures Con 35% (based on a strong UKIP vote that is likely to stick to some degree in the GE), Lab 31.7%, LDs 14% (based on a slight uptick as local organising comes into play).
The result in seats on those figures would be Con 294 Lab 293 LD 34, Others 29.
That would certainly be an interesting result. It would mean that despite the LDs being punished severely by the electorate they would actually (just) hold the balance of power.
Con + LD 328
Lab + LD 327
What would the LDs do? Carrying on in government would likely continue to hollow out the party. Would there be a split in the LDs on which coalition party to go with? How long would a new Coalition government last given the tiny majority they would have?
The reality is that a hung parliament is seeming increasingly likely and one where even a new coalition may struggle to get a majority.
In my view nobody can claim for certain what the outcome is likely to be - it is still wide open.
There in no one on the Labour frontbench untainted by those years of Blair and Brown.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/26/gangs-sexual-violence-warzones
Fair point.
The problem has been getting ever more acute and may now have reached a tipping point.
The Labour govt did introduce some quite generous housing schemes for "key workers" (which have been now discontinued but which made ameliorated the situation for some of those you describe). These were of course grossly unfair on private sector earners on similar salaries but there you are.
QE and low interest rates have aggravated the situation since 2010.
As has the continued lack of house-building- the demand overhang just builds up and builds up.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/05/core-cities-labours-reservoir.html
Frank Field would capture a few kipper votes but he's a complete outsider in Labour circles. Once he annoyed Mrs Rochester, he became history.
I still don't see the Libdems being listened to by the electorate whilst Clegg is there. It may just be Clegg's misfortune to be in charge when the box was opened on the Schrödinger's cat that had been the LibDems. But that is a fundamental structural failure in a party trying to be all things to all men and positioning itself for a role in a Coalition Govt.. Be careful what you wish for.
Ironically, there is a risk that UKIP may now have taken on this Schrödinger's cat mantle, when it has to take positions and is consequently being seen to be compromised: when they start having to be FOR something and no longer AGAINST everything.
Actually, I've got an old(ish) book about King Arthur and his knights (just over 100 years or so old and not in great shape, alas), and my favourite tale was that of Gareth and Lynette. Sir Gareth fights a Black Knight (and a Red Knight, and a Green Knight).
The clearest finding from his poll was about the Labour held ultra marginals showing that the swing to Labour was about 1.5% higher than nationally. This would mean that to win these seats the Conservatives will need a national lead over Labour of 9 or 10%. That seems highly unlikely. Therefore the only likely route to a majority is through Lib Dem seats.
But to win 20 seats against the Lib Dems seems like a tall order. They can do it on a swing of 5% but we all know that the Lib Dems will likely outperform in at least some of those marginals.
Therefore the chances of a Conservative majority still seem remote even though Labour one is starting to look equally remote. Instead what should I think be favourite is the Conservatives winning most seats. And of course that could be enough for them to remain in government.
That said I agree he is by far the most human of the Labour leadership. I was impressed with his contributions to Hillsborough and I agree that his ideas of more integrated services for the NHS and other care services sounds a sensible way forward.
I fear he is a little lightweight but he would be an improvement on Ed. My mother in law, a life long Labour supporter, voted for him which I found interesting.
To put forward stuff like this is a bit like a Tory sneering that a small dogfish is biting the SNP opponent on the thumb while he's being devoured by a Great White shark. It's true that dogfishes can have a nasty bite and that they can grow, but they aren't as big as Great Whites.