Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on what what might happen to upset the consen
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on what what might happen to upset the consensus on the GE2015 outcome
I was struck at the politicalbetting meet in Ilkley on Monday how much consensus there was about the likely result of the next election. The great majority expected Labour as the largest party in another hung parliament. That’s the view of the betting markets too:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I've been in the Highlands this week - what support there is is for "Yes" - much spray painted on the back of roadsigns, rocks, etc - but not that much really.
It doesn't need a big event to shift things. We may well just see a gentle drift, probably starting in the Autumn.
@Socrates,
re Banglashis vs Poles, I put my point badly, let me rephrase it.
If immigration was designed to create Labour voters by importing grateful Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, then why have Polish people coming into the country?
These are people who are not coming here - by and large - to gain citizenship, and so you wouldn't want to bother getting them here for that reason. In fact, the existence of said Poles and Romanians - who gain no economic or otherwise advantage from becoming British - depresses the earning power of the so-called Labour clients core votes.
This EU immigration outnumbers Bangladeshi/Pakistani immigration by an order of magnitude. (If I read the statistics right, 69,000 people came to the UK from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2012, barely more than came from the 'old commonwealth', and massively less than came from the EU. See: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06077.pdf)
Also, you are so incredibly pessimistic about British culture and society, it genuinely scares me. I believe we are one of the finest - if not the finest - country in the world. I believe that most people who come here, the vast majority in fact, come here because they want to be part of Britain, and want to be part of what makes us great. Sure, there are nutjobs, for whom things didn't work out and who see Allah as the answer. But these people - even in the sink estates of East London - are surprisingly rare. Britain is so great, that the vast majority of people want to be just like you or me. They want their kids to go to university. They want their kids to succeed and have good jobs and wear suits, and have a mortgage and a car. Sure, they (increasingly unsuccessfully) want their kids to still observe Ramadan and not to go with their mates to the pub on a Friday night. But just with the assimilated Jews, it doesn't work in the long-term. Because British culture is awesome and seductive. The reason the Imman preaches violence and destruction is not because we're an easy target, but because he's losing his flock to Mammon and The Fox and Hounds and the Emirates.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/politics-old/south_suffolk_babergh_councillor_james_cartlidge_chosen_to_fight_seat_for_tories_at_2015_general_election_1_3681650
Now it's true that not all are like this, and some are very pro-British. And it's also true that many members of the second generation go against their parents wishes and integrate. I think this is great and I think such people are as British as you or me. But it is a long slow process for immigrant communities to integrate, and right now we are importing people much more quickly than we can integrate them. That results in alienation and cultural change. The fact that these immigrant groups have very different voting profiles from the native population demonstrates how far integration has to go.
Nothing to do with me, old man. I remember seeing such a comment this morning but I certainly didn't make it.
New Populus VI: Lab 36 (-2); Cons 34 (+3); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 12 (-2); Oth 10 (+2) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi140711
"The worst fall-off for the Conservatives was in Romford – a key battleground for Ukip – where almost 400 people, more than half of the local party, left in the course of a year"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/11/local-conservative-associations-warn-cameron-members-mass-exodus
Farage is far too good at them to be allowed in the studio.
"Inquiry judge hid claims of bishop's sex abuse
The retired judge leading the Westminster child abuse inquiry kept allegations about a bishop out of a report on a paedophile scandal because she “cared about the Church”, The Times can disclose.
Baroness Butler-Sloss told a victim of alleged abuse that she did not want the claims to be in the public domain because “the press would love a bishop"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4145685.ece
Memberships don't quite follow votes. It does affect by election and local election campaigns though.
Give it time, and you'll get used to it.
Edit to add -- welcome!
Can I just pick up on one point you made: " just a decade between 2001 and 2011, the increase in British residents born in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India increased by half a million"
That sounds like a lot, doesn't it?
But what we're really saying is that - despite what you regard as the most mass immigration friendly government possible - over the course of one decade, 0.8% of the population was imported from the whole Indian subcontinent. And that 0.8% is much less likely to vote than most people (turnout is typically very low in those constituencies with high immigrant populations). So, let's generously say they managed to get 0.6% of votes. Which is obviously ridiculous, because not all the people from the Indian subcontient took British citizenship, and not all of them will vote Labour. But let's just pretend that they did for the sake of your argument.
So, the Labour Party has managed to import 0.6% of people who'll support them come hell or high water in a decade.
But at the cost of losing at least 5x that in terms of Labour losses to UKIP, and presumably some similar number to the Conservative Party.
You are simultaneously accusing the Labour Party of being very clever, and very stupid.
Why one is it?
A counter to it would be that, if even a percentage of those leaving the Romford branch went to UKIP, it gives them the basis of a campaign team with experience and canvassing returns?
This gay marriage story is old though:
http://ukgovernmentwatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-war-of-the-tories.jpg
An amusing conclusion to the $CYNK story.
The SEC has suspended trading on its shares for 2 weeks due to what we know and that single employee, CEO, owner, CFO, ect ect. worth $5 billion yesterday has been humorously tracked:
http://www.businessinsider.com/cynk-ceo-2014-7
Now it's true that UKIP might mean this whole thing combusts on them, but we've yet to see how long UKIP will last for. But Labour never imagined UKIP would happen. And now that it has, they're ambivalent about it. Working class whites have social conservatism and have been a difficult part of the coalition. Far better to replace them with people that stay with you come hell or high water. At least that's the current thinking. Maybe you're right and Labour will come to see how they are destroying their own voting coalition by supporting opening immigration up. But the penny hasn't dropped yet.
You analysis seems to have completely ignored internal migration e.g. 'White Flight' and the fact that immigrants have children. Lots of children. We're seeing this in the school rolls.
Furthermore, you have completely ignored clan and religious loyalties, which are far more durable than political allegiances.
One observation that others may be able to confirm or deny is that although the Tories are supposedly pursuing a 40-40 strategy (40 defences and 40 potential gains) they are mainly playing defence. Colleagues with marginal Labour seats say they're not seeing much Conservative activity, beyond the usual direct mails and phone canvassing. In the Tory defence seats we're at least seeing the MP pitching away, but the Tory PPCs much less so. If that's right, then the actual likely range may be from "Con largest party" to "Labour overall majority", with "Con majority" out of reach.
Good luck with the job, ToryJim - with two interviews you're clearly at least in the frame.
Socrates - like others before you, you've seized on one quote by someone who used to be a Labour adviser on something he thinks he sensed, because it fits your theory. FWIW I've been active in the party for decades, and I've never heard anyone express a similar view. The "primary purpose" rule was felt by many to take an unfairly suspicious view of immigrant marriages, and we got rid of it for that reason. You could say that we were more alive to the issue because we have a fair number of immigrant members who raised it, but the idea that we were somehow importing potential voters didn't come into it at all. As for Eastern European immigrants, my impression is that if they vote (and most recent immgrants do not) they're more likely to vote Tory than Brits in similar occupations..
I'm sorry, Socrates, I know a great many people from the left hand side of the political spectrum (like Nick Palmer of the parish). I don't think a single minute of his day as an MP was spent thinking about how to gerrymander the voting system on a 30 year view by importing votes. Either the people I know are victims of a great conspiracy perpetrated by people like Mandelson and Blair (unlikely), or they are consummate liars (equally unlikely).
My experience is that politicians care about their own immediate electoral prospects, not their succesors. For this reason, it simply fails Occam's Razor.
I'd be upset if I hadn't made so much money from them on the horses.
Lady's Butler Sloshed!
You seem to have it in for us South Asians don't you?!
Also, doesn't this plan rely on these ethnic minority voters not noticing that the Labour Party is full of gay marriage loving atheists?
Amazing how when a constituency becomes more Asian it turns from Conservative to Labour, usually permanently.
But you have a few bits wrong.
I was not referring to the Electoral Commission but to OfCom who set the rules for all UK broadcasters except the BBC, whose rules are set by the BBC Trust. OfCom is subject to rules established by the Electoral Commission. The EC also participates (or is invited to participate) in OfCom's formal consultation exercises.
The 10% polling level is not a formal benchmark but a de facto guide which can be deduced from the stated workings and past decisions of OfCom. It is also one of a number of measures taken by OfCom in reaching its decision. Voting shares in the previous election of the same type appears to be the major consideration.
A further point to note is that a decision on whether a party qualifies as a "major party" does require broadcasters to include that party in any national leadership debates. They are separate decisions although the "major party" ruling would be taken into account in making the decision on debate participation.
So I don't think it right to conclude from OfCom's statements on the GE and its report and consultation documents on the EP decision, that UKIP would automatically be granted "major party" status if it had been recently polling more than 10% of VI at the time the decision is taken. Nor that UKIP would automatically be included in the leadership debates if OfCom granted the party major status for the General Election.
What can be concluded is that a VI polling share of 10% plus would add weight to the case that UKIP should be granted major party status, and, if so granted, major party status would add weight to the party's claim to be included in the leadership debates. Conversely, if UKIP are polling below 10% at the time the decision is made (October 2014 is the suggested time) then their case to be granted major party status would be significantly weakened.
twitter.com/TimesCrime/status/487733616651149312
You asked for evidence for my statement. I can't find the place I originally found numbers, but here is a quote from an academic study on ethnic minority engagement in voting:
"In other contexts (for example, with party identification and civic duty) there appear to be no systematic age or generation effects at all."
http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/documents/epop/papers/EM_pol_integration_EPOP2012.pdf
*As in Bangladesh Nationalist Party
And have you noticed it's a gay Tory complaining about the result in Tower Hamlets rather than Labour? It was as if the Tories were cheated of the mayoralty.
On a serious note, I do hope I haven't offended you Sunil. I know there are people from ethnic minorities on this board and the ones I know of, including yourself, are very decent people. I do my best to go out my way not to criticise individual immigrants or their descendants and always try to focus on aggregate issues. However, I'm aware it's a sensitive topic and it's easy to say something that can be misconstrued. I'm always happy to clarify my meaning if challenged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1950s
And here's a quotation to digest: telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10811119/General-election-2015-Look-whos-not-voting-Tory.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgRvm1yLFoaQKhmaTqXk9SA
"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
http://www.change.org/petitions/home-office-baroness-butler-sloss-must-stand-down-or-be-removed-from-heading-abuse-inquiry?recruiter=45826810&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_mobile
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/11/ask-me-anything-the-perils-of-inequality/
A better approach is just to look at how often they happen over a given period of time, and the markets do seem to be doing OK there: They're pricing in the conflicting force acting against the Lab Maj of a slowly diminishing lead and the opposite force of a slowly diminishing time remaining for something to happen.
If anything I think they may actually be underestimating the case for things staying as they are and Labour getting a majority despite the voters not thinking they're very good.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100271944/the-grotesque-inequality-in-thailand-makes-me-worry-for-the-first-time-about-the-future-of-capitalism/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d29HX0I46sQ&
Only Cyril prepared to do it, must have been paid in pre pubescents. Probably in imperial measure
It is clear from the report and its terms of reference that EB-S's task was to review the previous handling of a specific case and make recommendations on how future cases should be handled by the diocese and Church. Her review was not required nor authorised to investigate or decide on any allegations of abuse outside the terms of reference of the review.
I have been asked by the Bishop of Chichester to look at the cases of two priests serving in the diocese who were the subject of historic child abuse allegations. I have also been asked to make my own recommendations about the current child protection policy and process in the Diocese. My terms of reference are in an appendix to my review.
I have had some difficulty in assessing the reliability of recollected information and have found a lack of detailed record keeping which may lead to some inaccuracies in my account of events. I shall refer only to those facts which I consider relevant to my task of review.
It would therefore have been outside her remit to include any new allegations against additional persons in her report. Her decision to refer Phil Johnson's allegations against an unnamed bishop in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and not to refer to them in the body of the report was quite correct.
The language used by EB-S and the recommendations she makes in her report are also totally at odds with Phil Johnson's recollection of how she responded to his concerns on the exclusion of a reference to the bishop at his private meeting with her in the House of Lords.
[to be continued]
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss: Part II
Particular note should be made of the following report recommendations:
9.13 There should be careful and meticulous record keeping both of issues of safeguarding and general personnel matters. All relevant information should be kept in two files, the Blue File held at the Palace and the Safeguarding File held by the DSA with cross‐referencing of important information held in one of the two files.
9.16 Adult victims disclosing abuse as a child should be treated with respect and compassion; their allegations treated seriously; they should not be seen as accusers or as problems and they should be kept informed of the progress of any investigation.
9.17 Victims should be offered counselling and support and, where appropriate, funding for therapy. There should be no automatic time limit on engagement with any individual victim, since the impact of childhood abuse can be lifelong.
9.18 Letters to individual victims should be addressed and signed personally and, where appropriate, apologies should be made to the victims.
If there is a case to be made against Dame Elizabeth-Sloss being Chairman of the Inquiry, it lies in her age and connections to Sir Michael Havers and not her handling of the Chichester Inquiry.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGbfbttJys
My first thought on seeing the story, was that it would be quite a convenient way of removing her regardless of how much meat is in it. I was very surprised by the initial appointment due to age and the Havers connection, rather than a question of competence. I'd be even more surprised if neither she nor the government have had no second thoughts since.
Actually one of the more interesting factoids they mentioned in the programme was that "Screaming" Lord Sutch first stood for election in 1963 for the "National Teenage Party"!
Am now reading through the full Chichester Report and gaining an impression of the issues, characters and relationships involved.
The abuser of Phil Johnson, Roy Cotton, had been an ordinand in training. In 1954, he was convicted in Abingdon Magistrates Court of indecent assault on a child. He was 25 at the time and it was a first offence. He was placed on probation for a year. He was also dismissed from his theological college.
There was very limited documentation on the nature of his offence and a record of his conviction by the Church was only maintained in a single file ("blue file") held at the Bishop's palace in the diocese in which he (much later) became a priest. What is known is that was connected with the Boy Scouts and that the Scout Movement's record at the time concluded he was “a person who may have no further connection whatsoever with the Movement.”
A subsequent incident, about which little is known, occured at the Prep School in 1966. It led to Cotton's dismissal but was not investigated further.
In the same year, Cotton resumed his theological training and became ordained as a priest in December. Cotton became a priest in the Portsmouth diocese and by 1969 was granted a Leader Permit by the local Scouts Committee.
Cotton was being considered for a parish in the diocese of Chichester in May 1971 and letters were exchanged about his suitability between the Bishops of Portsmouth and Chichester.
The BpP wrote that he could "wholeheartedly recommend him" and referred to the conviction in 1954 as "indecent exposure in front of boys". He also stated "I am clear in my own mind that Roy was more sinned against than sinning – there has been no sign of trouble whatsoever". BpP also wrote to the patron of the parish of Harting that "the charge against him in 1953 has, I believe, been proved a false one. He pleaded guilty at the time to spare the boys concerned having to appear in court. There has been no breath of suspicion of trouble since".
[to be cont.]
[continued]
In 1997, Roy Cotton was arrested by police on suspicion of abusing Phil Johnson, his brother (and others) between 1976 and 1983 when they victims were minors on holiday (I assume through the Scouts) and Cotton was a vicar of an Eastbourne Church. In March 1999, the Police informed both the victims and the Church that they had decided not to proceed further with the allegations.
The main brief for Butler-Sloss was to review the way in which the diocese handled events subsequent to the 1997 police arrest and to make recommendations on changes in policies and procedures for the future. Although not formally part of the terms of reference, the back history of Cotton and the extent to which it was known or should have been known was covered in the review.
The next post will be direct quotation from EB-S's report and should make sense in the context of the above background.
The extract from the report:
PJ [Phil Johnson, one of the victims] however told me that at a meeting he had with WB [Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes] and SH [Shirley Hosgood, former Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, Chichester] on the 26th August 2008 WB said that NR [The Bishop of Blackburn (formerly Archdeacon Nicholas Reade)] had told him 1998 or 1999 about the 1954 conviction.
PJ appears to have tape-recorded the 26th August meeting and I have a partial transcript in which WB said “I had a long conversation with my Archdeacon at the time, Nicholas Reid (Reade) …… When I had that conversation with Nicholas he told me out of the conversation (to SH).. I haven’t told you this before .. it has only just come back to my memory .. he told me out of those conversations that he.. that there had been a previous conviction, way back in the 70s (50s). Which I did not know about”.
And later in the conversation “and when Nicholas told me that which had come out of the conversation with Roy, I was horrified and all the more determined that we were going to actually get him into retirement which is what we did, because we thought it was the safest thing that could be done.”
NR told me that, if he had known about the conviction, “I would have advised Bishop Wallace that we had somebody with a serious history, and we should therefore view his present situation in that light.”
I consider it is most unlikely that either WB or NR did have knowledge of the 1954 conviction because, in my view, it was almost certain that the fact of the conviction would have been brought up at senior staff meetings when the position of RC [Roy Cotton, one the abusers] was discussed. Since WB considered RC to be a villain, the knowledge of the conviction, would, it seems to me, have spurred him on to urge EC [Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester until 2001] to take action to suspend RC or suspend him himself.
[to be continued]
Continued extract from report:
In this partial transcript of the tape (I have a copy of the tape) WB gave PJ incorrect information on the 26th August. WB told me that he should have said ‘accusation’ or ‘incident’ and not conviction. He also told me that by 2008 he had known about and thought about the conviction for 7 years and had become muddled. He also said that, if he had known about the conviction he would have taken action against RC.
After the 26th August meeting PJ wrote a letter thanking WB for the meeting and saying that his criticisms of the Church and Diocese were not aimed at WB. He did not raise any concerns at that time. At a later stage, PJ has been critical of WB for his failure to act on the knowledge of the conviction and his granting a PTO [Permission to Officiate] to RC after, as he said, he had pressured RC into retirement. I deal below with the grant of the PTO. It was, however, unfortunate that WB used the word ‘conviction’ at the August meeting because it has given PJ an erroneous impression of the facts and a belief that WB should have acted upon the knowledge of the 1954 conviction in 1998/9. That erroneous impression has to a great extent coloured the picture of those events for PJ. It has undoubtedly added to the stress suffered by PJ who was not only the victim of appalling treatment at the hands of one priest but now believes that he was not given a true account by the Bishop. [My emphasis].
Apart from applying emphasis to the conclusion of the quoted section of the report, I am reluctant to add further comment as the tone and content of the passage stands as a possible explanation of why Phil Johnson, through The Times, is calling for EB-S to stand down as Chairman of the Inquiry into institutional handling of historic child abuse allegations.
It is possible to find a handful of Tory gains (mostly from LD) but hard to find a Labour held seat that is likely to go Tory. There are quite a few Tory marginals likely to go the other way.
The Miliband factor is priced in, and he can only surprise on the upside
On the other hand, Labour should be pushing for the bankruptcy of (most) of our hospital Trusts to be publicised. People know that waiting lists are becoming longer, faster, than at any time since the NHS was created. Unfortunately for its electoral chances, there's a good reason why Labour isn't keen to do this. It hasn't got an answer. And if people think that the politicians can't organise a health care system (which is basically true for those of us over 60 or even 50 who don't have health insurance from way back) that will have implications for turn-out.
I expect the Tories to get round about 300-320 seats. They will then run a minority government whose principal function will be to redistribute seats so that at a further election the year after next they can achieve a working majority.
Ed as PM will not have full effect until much closer to the GE.
I think In the 2010 debates that Brown came over better than expected and that Miliband will do the same in 2015. The setting of a debate plays in Milibands comfort zone of discussion of political issues by a small group of interested parties. He falls flat on man of the people photo calls but a debate is home turf. Cameron can be overbearing in such situations. Clegg is likely to try to be equidistant by differentiating himself from David. Farage clearly loathes Cameron (and vice versa) and will focus his fire there. Endless raising of Europe as an issue will also help Labour.
The Economic signals are a bit wobbly at present, with a lot of Eurozone uncertainty as well as the ongoing mid east crises. Any slowing down of our own economy is likely to help Ed.
The SNP vote is likely to drop after No win, with Labour the most likely beneficiary.
Labour majority looks more likely to me than other options.
You think 3 weeks or more of Ed on the telly will help Labour? Ed can have a disastrous campaign just as much as a good one. We know he is crap.. there are all sorts of states of crap
Such events are much more likely to hurt and split governments than oppositions.
Ed is a canny operator, and at home in the debating meme which he was brought up on. He has an instinctive ability at machine politics, and political tactics. It is a mistake to underestimate him. He is better at set pieces with longer times than with soundbites and staged photocalls.
I am not saying that he will be a good PM, but I do think that he is mistakenly underestimated by many on here.