Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harnessing envy and resentment could be the key to GE15
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harnessing envy and resentment could be the key to GE15
Blame is of almost limitless supply in politics but that’s not to say it doesn’t retain significant value if fashioned with skill. Two policy announcements this week gave ample good indication that both Labour and the Conservatives are more than willing to make much of that raw material over the next six months.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dave failed to meet, or even close on his immigration promise, even if you ignore the EU immigrants which he couldn't do much about the non-EU is still 160k+, not the "tens of thousands" he promised, otherwise we could kick him out in five years.
Ed bangs on about the rich and privileged, and yet has a shadow cabinet stuffed with private school attenders, grammar school attenders and people from wealthy backgrounds. His friends and confidants are champagne socialists and Hampstead liberals. He was also a minister in the government that was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
The less said about Nick and boundary reviews and tuition fees the better.
Current weighted average poll ratings are SNP 42%, Labour 26%. The situation changes dramatically, if it becomes 34% each. Labour wins many more seats than the SNP.
LD ;looking like winning less than 5. Currently only 2. Tories also 2 and depending on SNp - Labour split might even win 3.
Areas that voted overwhelmingly for NO are, I'd argue, much less fertile territory for the SNP than those that had big YES figures.
The Scottish indyref was a case in point. 84% of eligible Scots voted, the biggest election turnout in Britain for a century. That's not disillusionment. That's democracy.
Incidentally should something completely unexpected happen, and Farage pulls off 50-60 seats, would you take the view that "that was democracy" or would you tell us how it was too many "malcontents" voting ;-)
It's never entirely the case therefore that a donkey in the right coloured rosette will win. If they have been shown to be corrupt, rule out nothing. The electorate decides and everyone starts at zero. I don't see eye-to-eye with Mike on everything, usually surrounding polling, but he's right that we vote for a constituency MP.
As for the final question about UKIP winning 50-60 seats, it really is hilarious. Yes of course I would accept that as the democratic will of the people. It won't happen.
Mellor lost his seat with a swing of 11.2% against the Tories, which is exactly the national swing against the party, so his celebrity made no difference to his personal vote.
John Major didn't get the boot despite being where the buck stopped, could it be because of his 30% majority after he took a 10% swing against him on the chin ?
More recently when Labour lost, Mr Hain had been in a quite a bit of bother, but there was no way he was going to lose in Neath.
Credibility is indeed key. But are UKIP credible either?
We have White Van Man party led by a Public School financier who doesn't read his own manifesto. We have two Public School educated UKIP MPs who have defected from the libertarian wing of the Conservative party who now want to re-introduce the spare room subsidy and protect the NHS.
They want an end to both EU and non EU immigration but do not want existing EU migrants to be expelled, and do not elaborate on which classes of non EU migrants (spouses?, students?, refugees?, nurses?) that will be barred under a UKIP influenced government.
I do worry that all parties are whipping up passions that cannot be satisfied, creating a situation that is ungovernable, with a parliament with no overall control.
A good Saturday thread DH.
And you have been a bit cheeky because you have cross-played two datasets. The swing against David Mellor in Putney was 13.3%, higher than the national swing against the Conservatives of 11.2%
Perhaps an even more notable example was Norman Lamont, parachuted into what would have been considered the hitherto rock solid Conservative region of Harrogate. The voters decided it was their opportunity to teach him a lesson and voted for Phil Willis (who held on there for two further elections).
The point is that no-one can be considered entirely safe. It's democracy and everyone goes back to zero on dissolution. True, many will be re-elected with ease, but if they foul up as happened in 1992-7 then the electorate has the power to give them the boot.
Next May Britain will need to form a government and while I do not think that UKIP will hold the balance of power they may well make Britain ungovernable.
A rant over a pint is a good way of getting things off ones chest, but in a government we need a bit more than that.
I am confident that the UKIP vote share will slide when the General Election campaign properly gets going circa February / March. It's all very well having a deserved mid or late term rant, but in May people decide on their next Government. The playing will be over, and serious parties will receive the most votes.
@Financier
I see, you're worth it. Just like the CEO's, and city whizz kids. it's just the little people (the plebs?!) who are earning too much.
Well, believe me, I'm worth it too. The specialised work I've completed this week will be used by academics, planners, policymakers and the wider environmental sector for the next few years for all sorts of things. And It has a socially useful purpose.
It's for the market to find a value for productivity. At the moment however the market is broken, skewed in favour of the 1% who can manipulate it. Who are you to say what people's time is worth?
Ukip home announced this morning.
They won't like that at the golf course when I break the news shortly....
Never mind, I'm off for a while - got to catch a train...
Equally there is nothing wrong with right wing poor people. Those who vote against their class and economic interests often have strong feelings as to why.
Personally I would happily see charitable status removed from private schools, as part of school reform. The counterpart should be for the funding that the student is not using for a state school place should be rebated to the parents/guardian of the child.
But "champagne socialism" is a genuine phenomenon in a party where the non-TU membership are so weighted towards London members. I left the party so many years ago because the central leadership was not interested in the views of ordinary members who (in Leicester at least) overwhelmingly against the Iraq war and NHS privatisation. It is a little ironic that the leadership now realises that we were right, and has changed its tune, but is considered more out of touch than ever!
Tory politicians were ex military officers, farmers, lairds or respected owners of family businesses. Labour politicians were teachers, ministers, trade union chiefs or (mainly) men who had worked on the shop floor and 'made things' with their hands. Liberals, such as there were, tended to be more like Tories than Labour people in background. Few went straight into politics and most were recognisable in their communities.
Today most people don't give a flying fig for any of them. They see the minister as irrelevant (except when they want a church wedding or funeral for a family member). They see the lawyer as a rip-off merchant and the doctor as someone to give them a tablet or quick-fix cure for everything from over consumption of junk food to a certificate when they choose to throw a sickie!
In short people no longer hold the values their parents and grandparents did and politicians have suffered as a result. Add to that the fact few politicians have actually ever had a real job outside politics and we can see where the ordinary people find it difficult to identify with them.
Even among those younger politicians who have come from generally 'normal' backgrounds, a couple of years immersion in the London bear pit and they quickly lose their local bearings and "go native"! They become part of the metropolitan elite, the London chatterati who know little beyond the M25.
It therefore becomes easy for these political beasts to become reliant on the party backroom organisations, the focus groups and the journalists who follow them around like flies to shite.
SNP 47 (+41)
SLab 11 (-30)
SLD 1 (-10)
SCon 0 (-1)
UKIP 0 (+0)
Martin is very rarely in the wrong ballpark.
The only non-SNP seats would be:
Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill - Tom Clarke (SLAB)
East Renfrewshire - vacant (Jim Murpy, SLAB, retiring)
Glasgow East - Margaret Curran (SLAB)
Glasgow North East - Willie Bain (SLAB)
Glasgow South West - Ian Davidson (SLAB)
Glenrothes - vacant (Lindsay Roy, SLAB, retiring)
Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath - vacant (Gordon Brown, SLAB, retiring)
Motherwell & Wishaw - Frank Roy (SLAB)
Orkney & Shetland - Alistair Carmichael (SLD)
Paisley & Renfrewshire South - Douglas Alexander (SLAB)
Rutherglen & Hamilton West - Tom Greatrex (SLAB)
West Dunbartonshire - Gemma Doyle (SLAB)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_scot.html
I am shocked! How low can it go...?
Who's actually an acclaimed photo journalist...
Emily Thornberry MP (@EmilyThornberry)
28/11/2014 07:27
My local paper @IslingtonTrib has an exclusive interview with my builder brother - who puts the record straight > islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/…
...far from spending his entire career engaged in manual labour, this newspaper has discovered that Mr Thornberry is, in fact, an acclaimed photojournalist who spent several years chronicling the US gay rights movement and whose work has been used on record covers and exhibited in galleries.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11262229/Snobs-Im-a-white-van-man-says-MPs-brother.html
"6. Various Ukippers responded immediately to the speech by saying that the EU would never accept it. They're wrong. The key governments have plainly been squared in advance and, more to the point, the benefits changes won't require a treaty change. The treaties enshrine the principle of free movement of people; but it was only through a series of power-grabs by the European Commission and Court that this came mean free access to welfare. Of all David Cameron's proposals, only one would require an Intergovernmental Conference: the suspension of free movement rights from future EU member states. Since no further expansion of the EU is planned for at least five years, he has plenty of time to work on that.
7. A better line of criticism, if you're determined to find fault, is precisely the opposite one. Since these proposals won't require treaty change, why wait? Why not enact them now?
8. There are two answers. First, it suits David Cameron to leave the issue as a differentiator among the parties at the next general election. Second, if there won't be a new treaty, immigration allows him to bring something back from the renegotiation that precedes our referendum."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100290138/ten-observations-about-david-camerons-speech-on-immigration/
Which has the feel of not to be played again, gary glitter records from the seventies.
The anti-Grammar school push always puzzled me. As long as they have movement into and out of after age eleven they seem to fit a need. OK, I went to one, and on our council estate that was rare, but I never felt special, and apart from the usual banter none of the other kids ever thought they were being excluded. My younger brother went to the secondary school and did well.
The Grammar School teachers might have been marginally better but facilities were similar. What was different was expectation - both from the teachers and the parents - and the class discipline. My nephew went to the secondary school but transferred into the Grammar sixth form without too much disruption.
The "it's not fair" campaign against them was based on pure envy. Yes, if you have what is now called a 'disorganised' family (and I knew plenty), you're going to struggle in any school. And if expectations are low, you may not see the potential benefits of education when you're young.
So the cure for this is to stop others taking advantage. Taking advantage of something which was freely available and not dependent on income. The politicians don't care, they can always pick and choose anyway.
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-nine-labours-of-cameron-analysis-of.html
hell even the PM said it yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11259900/David-Cameron-Britains-future-in-EU-at-stake-over-immigration.html
Take a Scottish sub sample from an opinion poll and input the figures into electoral calculus .
So Populus Friday had Lab 32 SNP 30 Con 19 LD 13 as its Scottish sub sample
Input into electoral calculus
Con 2 seats
Lab 37 seats
SNP 11 seats
Lib Dem 9 seats
Somehow I cant see him posting these results
"Somewhat surprisingly, David Cameron said today that the entire package he announced would require an EU treaty change.
Open Europe believes that changes to in-work benefits – the key tenet of Cameron’s proposal – will not require EU treaty change. Therefore, such a change could be more a form of ‘political insurance’ at home to prove that the policy is firm and will stand the test of time."
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Article/Page/en/LIVE?id=22846&page=PressReleases
You might be right. Parents generally want the best for their kids (Diane Abbott) and the big push to close down grammars came from Tony Crosland, a politician obsessed with grammar schools. Perhaps he was beaten up a grammar school kid when he was young?
But teachers from secondary schools didn't have the same prestige - that's true.
FWIW I canvassed local opinion in and outside the party very extensively (e.g. putting the case for intervention at a notably polite Stop the War rally) before voting for the Iraq intervention, and opinion was 2-1 in favour. We were, as it turned out, wrong (in my opinion), but it's mistaken to think that the population or the party membership was overwhelmingly against at the time. In general you can win a complex argument if you engage - something I still admire about Tony Blair - but of course winning arguments shouldn't be confused with necessarily being right, and the conclusion I've belatedly come to is that we shouldn't be killing people when we're not really sure (cf. Libya, Syria).
Now the leadership has come round, shouldn't you be coming back? :-)
"Somewhat surprisingly, David Cameron said today that the entire package he announced would require an EU treaty change.
Open Europe believes that changes to in-work benefits – the key tenet of Cameron’s proposal – will not require EU treaty change. Therefore, such a change could be more a form of ‘political insurance’ at home to prove that the policy is firm and will stand the test of time."
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Article/Page/en/LIVE?id=22846&page=PressReleases
The real problem, as usual with the EU, is the first time some challenges it in the CJEU, the judges there have shown themselves happy time and again to give, shall we say, generous interpretations of the law.
All of the parties are using a demonisation strategy:
- "The 1%"
- Benefits scroungers
- Multinationals
- Power companies
- Landlords
- Immigrants
- Europe
- Politicians (Either from their opponent parties or as a whole (this one has the most resonance of all of them)
Because hatred of the other is the most human of all traits and it means that we can congratulate ourselves on our purity and nobility even as we indulge in the nastiest aspect of the human psyche. So giving us the opportunity to blame the other for our own travails, making it seem justifiable and right - will always be a great route to popularity. As a bonus, there will always be an appropriate area of the media to cheer them on against one or more of those demons, cherrypick anecdotes and distort the facts to support them ...
Quite depressing, really.
Downside very limited when you look at the Ashcroft polling and they could get up near 40 if they even have a slight recovery in the polls which should happen going into May
This one's a full sized novel.
Both can have samples downloaded so they can be tried out ahead of the game, and if you're canny, you can get The Fourth Lectern for FREE at Smashwords (thanks, Morris Dancer!) here.
(The idea is that after reading that one, you'll find yourself compelled to buy the sequel
Excellent article by Charles Moore on the Rigby Report.
The meekness of Cameron's demands shows that they've already been agreed with European capitals. In all likelihood they won't require treaty change, but if they do, it's already been rubber stamped. There might be a few feathers ruffled but Angela Merkel will order them into line saying "look, we need to keep the UK in the EU and these are such negligible changes that it's well worth it to allow Cameron to make a big show to his plebs."
OTOH, everything I've heard suggests that Labour's organisation has withered away in its strongholds, so maybe they will just collapse. And, as you say, it's unlikely the SNP will make much headway in No areas, so they must really be surging in Yes areas.
7. A better line of criticism, if you're determined to find fault, is precisely the opposite one. Since these proposals won't require treaty change, why wait? Why not enact them now?
8. There are two answers. First, it suits David Cameron to leave the issue as a differentiator among the parties at the next general election. Second, if there won't be a new treaty, immigration allows him to bring something back from the renegotiation that precedes our referendum.
If Cameron believes that these changes will cause such reductions to EU migration, then why on Earth is allowing another year or so of it before he makes the changes? He cares more about show than actually reducing the numbers coming here.
Oh, and there's no new proposals on reducing non-EU immigration.
Any idea of replacing political union with free trade has been dropped. Likewise the talk of repatriating the bulk of social and employment policy and criminal justice. And, for that matter, the promise made in 2009 that we would opt out of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
I'll try your tome as I like alternative histories.
And as it's the weekend, I'll do what my publisher (Wild Wolf) has suggested and plug my own alternative history. Look away if you're of a nervous disposition as the publishers describe it as "dark and edgy" (I thought it was 'thoughtful' but what do I know?)
"An ever rolling stream" (available as an e-book from Amazon, whose tax affairs are, I'm sure wholesome) is set a hundred years after the Cuban Missile Crisis developed into a mini WW3. It involves racism, genetics, sex, and good 'ol murder and treachery.
It costs just under £2 (I blame the publishers) and will go into print if ratings are good. So if you don't like it, keep it a secret.
www.amazon.co.uk/Ever-Rolling-Stream-Colin-Davy-ebook/dp/B00OMJK3XO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1413623113&sr=8-3&keywords=an+ever+rolling+stream
Thanks - and that's my last plug, I promise.
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2014/11/scotland-westminster-polling-update-snp_29.html
I remember Stefano laughing once as he told me that the "Boots nurse" was the second most trusted healthcare professional (after the "local GP")
Problem is there's no such thing...
Could be a passing phase.
@DPJHodges: Lord Tebbit's new EU migrants test is bad news for Mrs Farage.
The timing implies it could be because people want devomax as promised by Messrs Brown, Cameron etc. in and around the Vow, and only trust the SNP to help deliver this. And/or because they lost patience with Labour helping the Tories - e.g. Mr Darling on live TV defending Conservative policies as part of the fruits of the Union.
As you say therein, to see the geographical distribution of the change to SNP be very interesting.
What surprises me (honestly) is the decline in the Conservative and Unionist Party vote from 21%-ish to 17%-ish.
Which is the nicer sounding society?
A points based system that allows only immigrants that are specifically required into the country, but once they are here, they are treated as an equal and allowed access to the same benefits as anyone else
or
A system where anyone is allowed in, but must register with the police to check they are working, and are treated as second class citizens when they are in need of help from the welfare state
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-29/live-blog-victoria-votes-2014/5928222
If, however, the SNP fall back from their current polling levels, it could be critical there.
Ta.
I've just bought your book for 77p. Damn the expense!
"If an immigrant has been here 6 months, hasn't got a job, but isn't claiming any benefits, why are you going to deport him? What has he done wrong?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11262190/Police-checks-for-migrants.html
I do wonder how English votes for English laws/an English Parliament will feature in the election. The Conservatives, I imagine, will be keen to vote for and campaign for (if it doesn't pass) the former. Really, we need the latter, but English votes would at least be a stepping stone in the right direction.
The income tax issue is a critical issue, and such a farce one wonders if the Smith Commission is plain stupid or actively trying to dissolve the United Kingdom. It's indefensible to have income tax rates devolved whilst MPs from Scottish constituencies can vote on English income tax.
BTW in Germany everyone has to register their abode with the police.
Never the less, cheers Mr Herdson, for a good Saturday thread.
"At the point of entry you were given leave to enter the UK for 6 months to find employment, you didn't, you have therefore overstayed according to the terms for your visa."
Just like we would tell a tourist that has been in the country too long that they have overstayed their visa.
Yes, its b____cks, yes its going to get challenged to hell in the ECJ, no Dave doesn't see an immigration problem, he sees a political problem - getting through the next election. Maybe... no one has said anything about it.
There is a good chance that UKIP will come out of this immigration debate looking fair and honest, & in their effort to look tough, the big two parties will end up looking like the bad guys
Ironic that the policies that are going to make the Tories look nasty again are coming from the Home Office
28/11/2014 17:53
UK PM speaks today on immigration crisis. His problem - lack of credibility. Anyone listening?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30253498
The team's drivers will have a combined age of 37 or 38 in 2015.
The simple answer is to change the benefit rules for everyone: simply say that from April next year anyone, British citizen or otherwise, needs to have been resident for four years to qualify for benefits.
If that is too rich for Cameron's blood, he could easily stop Child Benefit being paid in respect of children living outside the UK. Entitlement to benefit in the UK is through residency, and these children are simply not resident. It probably wouldn't save very much money, but it would be simple to implement, and would show intent.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
No its just his usual patronising nonsense, it's like his magnum opus at Clacton, he's preaching to the moderate tories that were never going to vote for anyone else but Dave, and pissing off the less inclined to be Cameroon and showing them the door. The approach of Mr Paris, and to be fair quite a few Tories on here is a bit bizarre.
"Piss off you nasty racist ting-tongs who wouldn't know a church from a mosque, oh and please vote Tory not UKIP next May, go on, you know you want to really, pretty please!?"
Yes, that will work.
I am still upset that our lords and masters made a "vow" that was outside their authority to deliver, and is now going through as "consensus". I'd rather each party had different ideas so we could choose, and we could have a debate on which version was best.
I was a unionist, but I think the current situation is going to be worse: I would vote to expel the Scots if a referendum was held tomorrow. I think the best idea now is to renege on the deal, piss the Scots off and provoke them to leave.
Personally I think Cameron has effectively reneged on EVEL already. He has put his name to this crap which would allow Scots to vote on English taxes, and there are mutterings about devolution to "cities and regions". I think there should be too, but that is a matter for the English, not the UK Government, which rightly has no say over local government in Scotland and should not in England either.
"This food is awful."
"Yes, and the portions are too small."