American democracy is just completely fecked. And the Republican party (within the context of a functioning democracy) even more so. They have no policy platform whatsover beyond "pro guns (and by extension ANY measure taken to control their misuse", "anti-abortion", and "owning the liberals/"radical extremist left" (aka "Democrats") - not that this can be considered a 'policy platform'. And many of their current "public faces" are in danger of elevating the likes of Bridgen and Francois to Brain of Britain standards.
OK, pushing it a bit on the last point, but got to stand up for the traditional British court jesters.
In my increasingly rare hopeful moments I keep thinking that the traditional, bland cant of 'while party x/pol y may have different political views we all have the interests of our country and people at heart' is finally going to be fired in to the heart of the sun and voters will start seeing individuals and institutions for the self serving, lying hypocrites that they are (example one Ted Cruz), but no, they may be an arsehole but they're our arsehole wins out every time.
The other thing that the Republican "platform" has become is a caricature of its traditional "small Govt" past. What was once a sensible belief that Government couldn't do everything, indeed the entirely reasonable position that it could try to do too much, has morphed into an apparent belief that Government can't do ANYTHING useful. So Republicans literally stand for office to prevent anything being attempted or done (by Government) to improve the lives of those they serve.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think general elections are won on one or two of the following factors:
Personality Performance Policies Positioning
Personality needs to be positive, appealing and in permanent campaigning mode. Johnson has it. Trump had it. Sturgeon has it. Starmer hasn't. Davey hasn't.
Performance is a mixture of gripping success/failure stories, a longer term narrative, and a perception of the "team". Trust is important too.
Policies are policies. Meh. Unless a particular policy is weaponised by the opposition. Policies are best avoided.
Positioning. It used to be workers versus capital. Now it is more identity conservatives (white, non graduates who feel threatened by changes) versus conviction liberals (white urban graduates) and necessity liberals (ethnic minorities who feel they need liberal protection but may not be socially liberal themselves).
You can apply this framework to England, US, Scotland (positioning is nationalism) and other nations.
Applying this to England:
Labour (and LibDems) can't win on personality! But NB it is possible to defeat personality using other factors viz Trump. Labour has a chance on performance. Johnson is riding high at the moment on vaccines but he has a crap cabinet and events dear boy. Starmer needs to strengthen his shadow cabinet and give them space to shine. The policies are almost indistinguishable and not a basis of competition but might provide pooh traps. Best avoided. Positioning: Starmer is trying to straddle both camps. Triangulation. But he may end up antagonising both. Vote Conservative is you want conservative values. Vote LIbDem if you want liberal values. NB Identity conservatives used to be in the majority (white non-graduates) but are quite rapidly shrinking as a proportion of the population. That is why they feel threatened. They are not just Labour working class. Lots of Tories too.
My conclusion Tory best strategy is personality and positioning (the Trump strategy) Labour best strategy is performance. LibDem best strategy is positioning
PS I've just made this up. Nothing better to do on a lockdown Sunday. But I like frameworks. They help me think.
Looks like a thread header to me
I considered offering it! But I'm shy.
Pretty sure Mike has taken comments of sufficient quality and made them into a thread header in the past, so it may happen anyway!.
Morning all! Good piece Alastair - in order for Labour to start taking seats like Worcester and holding seats in places like Wolves or Coventry it needs to thoroughly reinvent itself. The sad reality is that MPs like the idiot Sultana binned off almost the entire majority because she is fundamentally against what the majority of people in the city are about.
Starmer nailed the key issue - be seen as a partner to business. Problem is that he doesn't sound convincing, and still has morons like Sultana in his party who think the purpose of business is to Go Away so that they can bring back National Carriers.
As early as 2015 Labour had utterly lost touch with normals. Ed Milliband - like Starmer - also nailed the key issue. In 2015 it was the cost of living crisis and the squeezed middle. All those millions of hard working grafters still struggling to get by no matter how hard they work. "One Nation Labour" was the framework - "brilliant", I thought. Then you realise that its just another empty slogan with no substance.
In 2015 Labour had little to say to the middle ground squeezed or otherwise. By 2019 it spoke only to the bottom 5% and against the top 1%. To everyone else, why weren't you in a union or on benefits or otherwise worthy?
Starmer cannot reconnect with the public with the likes of Sultana in it, spending every minute of every day working to undermine his efforts to renew and to drive more voters away. The problem is that he doesn't have the balls to do it. He could do as Blair did - tell them they are irrelevant and ignore them so hard that nobody cared what they said, or do as Kinnock did and expel them in large numbers. In doing neither, he has shown himself to be as effective as name your cliche...
Labour was once a coalition of middle class, largely public sector professionals and unionised Labour. The latter strand kept the party focused on the working man (and it was mainly men the women being less unionised). That strand has (a) disintegrated with the loss of union based workforces in the private sector and (b) changed its nature because of the dominance of public sector unions representing a different class of people, more educated, qualified and entitled than the average.
The result is Labour no longer really represents the working man or woman. They are much more focused on public sector entitlements, pay and maintaining a customer class in benefit recipients who are supposed to be duly grateful but don't vote as often as they might.
It is the more populist Boris (and indeed Trump in the US) who has addressed the concerns of the blue collar and non-unionised workforce. We see similar trends all over the western world. The attitude of Labour is typical, it is patronising, abusive and indifferent thinking that they are better educated (which they are) and more liberal (ditto) and therefore better (not so much). They find this group increasingly difficult to relate to. Until they do, however, majorities are going to prove elusive.
That's a really interesting analysis, but I don't agree with all your conclusions.
What has replaced unionised labour? In large parts, low-paid jobs in call centres, warehousing, delivery, hospitality and so forth. You may be right that Boris (and Trump) addressed some of the concerns of this huge non-unionised workforce: patriotism/nationalism, anti-wokeness, Brexit and so on. But the jobs themselves are still crap: low paid, precarious, often lacking dignity (e.g. Amazon warehouses, JD Sports etc.) and not fulfilling. While Boris and Trump have appealed successfully to the sentiments of these workers, they've done little to improve their pay, working conditions, or sense of personal fulfillment through labour. And that's where Labour should focus, and there are signs of a strategy for Starmer there. Detoxify the woke/patriotism/Brexit stuff, and focus on well-paid jobs that offer dignity and security.
They absolutely are crap and these people are missing out almost entirely on our country's affluence. Its why I suggested my Workers Charter idea the other day. I would be delighted (and a bit surprised) if the government took it up instead of SKS.
But this is where the much more interesting analysis by @Barnesian comes into play. Positioning is really, really important. And if you think that this group are ignorant, racist, homophobic and more than just a bit thick selling them your economic policies is going to be an interesting challenge.
For instance, what is Labour's response on the Supreme Court decision on Uber workers and the whole gig economy?
There is something very 19th century about the gig economy: people having no security and being dependant on whatever work may be available while those using them become ever richer and work out more ways to avoid using them at all or doing so at lower and lower cost. OTOH flexibility and freelance work is attractive to others and can be a good thing for an economy and society.
What is the boundary between the two? Should there be more action to break up these rich monopolistic behemoths? What sort of security should workers get? What kind of society will we have if only a fortunate few have any sort of financial security or ability to make plans for the future? Covid and Brexit have make the divide between the fortunate few and those with little security very stark. And many who thought themselves fortunate - those with businesses or secure jobs or savings - are now finding themselves in a much more precarious position. Some of those jobs are not necessary or will migrate overseas or disappear. Many businesses have been hard hit and will not recover or take years to do so. Many freelancers have lost income. Savings are being used up.
There is a lot of insecurity and concern about. Much of it has been masked by the understandable concern about Covid. But it will still be there. Labour should be thinking about this.
And not just Labour. Boris won a loan of many of these votes in 2019 but if he wants to keep them he needs to think hard about how he makes their life a bit better.
The Supreme Court decision is a very important step in the right direction, arguably the most important Supreme Court decision for a very long time. But it should not stand alone. It should be buttressed by legislation which makes sure that risk is allocated not by economic power but by the ability to bear it. That will mean a few more pence on our cappuccinos (with or without chocolate), another quid on our bar meal and on the carry out, it might mean a few pence on each item from Amazon but if that is the price of people having some security, an ability to borrow, an ability to plan and some hope for the future we absolutely all need to pay it.
So far as the economy is going I am not so sure. For every self employed person like you and me who have taken a hit there is someone who has been on full salary and unable to spend it. There will be a lot of pent up demand.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
Wasn't there a poll last weekend that filtered out the 2019 Lab -> Con seats and showed Labour doing really well in them?
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
"That these marginal seats will decide the next election is not news. But look at the pattern the 201 marginal seats highlighted make. They dont concentrate in Wales, Scotland, London, the major cities or the truly rural areas. They arent really regional. They are heavily concentrated in Medium English Towns and Their Hinterlands (METTHs from now on)."
"SeanT was asking for someone to at least give him something to argue with, for a little sport"
"SeanTI think what this map underlines most effectively is just how many dismal little towns there are in England. What a depressing litany: Luton, Cleethorpes, Corby, Southport. St Austell is no looker either, despite being in Cornwall. Hereford, where I grew up, is nice but deadly dull.
Come friendly suicide bombers, and flatten them all"
"malcolmG: When the jessie boys are not at school the big boys come out to box their ears, get used to it or ask Sean to write a nasty post about us."
Interesting piece, thanks Alastair. I’ve never been to Colchester, but chocolate box isn’t how I imagine it. Curious that it was a Lib Dem seat and it’s taken a few elections for Labour to become the main challenger.
Colchester looks a bit like my seat of Woking in that the Tories look beatable, but the challenger isn’t strong enough to hoover up most of the non-Tory votes. Perhaps that will be different in such seats in 2024.
It’s also interesting to wonder if Tories might win a few more seats in the red wall next time even if they suffer a net loss overall. Labour just held on to Normanton, Castleford and Pontefract (Yvette Cooper’s seat) last time. I think that and Chesterfield might be possible gains for the Tories.
Hemsworth might be an interesting bet for a Conservative gain.
Majority of under 3%, Jon Trickett very likely to stand down, demographically trending Conservative and even the likes of South Elmsall showing signs of gentrification.
My goodness! I used to work out of Kinsley, the pit village at the end of the Universe. If Hemsworth goes solidly Tory, something very strange has occurred.
At the risk of going all Monty Python.
Kinsley is luxury compared to the utter shithole that Fitzwilliam is on the other side of the railway station
Not anti- English at all SNP supporter approvingly posts tweet calling for English national flag to be banned 🤔
It was the St Pauli bit to which I was referring, couldn’t give a fuck about the opinion of a US rock musician resident in Berlin on the ‘English national flag’.
Thin skinned obsessives gotta obsess I guess.
Very self aware your last sentence there. Credit to you for being so honest and reflective.
Ah, the old ‘I’ve turned your own words back on you, haw, haw, that larned ye!’
Funny how our ‘exchanges’ almost always centre on you latching onto one of my posts.
Incredible. You've finally worked out how a message board operates. Yes indeed, people read posts, and then they respond to them! Next you'll be figuring out how hyperlinks work. Keep it up!
Hey, I get it, with Malc absent you need your stalk a racist-against-the-English Nat fix. Pleased that I can give you an opportunity to scratch that itch.
Has something happened to Malc?
He messaged me to say that he's taking a rest from PB because he's getting perpetual 24hr bans while other folk seem to be getting away with murder. Malc and the missus are both fine and vaccinated btw.
Glad to hear that they are well. Sorry to hear he's stepping back. I enjoy his posts.
He doesn't help himself though. He's extremely aggressive.
But, we need a much rougher crowd on pb.com. Lots more noise and rowdiness. Malc contributes to this.
Atm, there is too much of talk of private jets, luxury food & high-end gentleman's tailoring. It is like an online version of a Gentleman's Club.
Immediate 24 hour ban should be handed out for bragging about Alpine skiing holidays, grand banquets, share portfolios or name-dropping.
Also for cricket, the world's most tedious game. Not for Malc's silver-tongued oratory.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
Wasn't there a poll last weekend that filtered out the 2019 Lab -> Con seats and showed Labour doing really well in them?
Yes, Opinium last weekend showed Labour ahead in Tory gains in 2019 even if the Tories were still comfortably ahead in Tory holds in 2019, which suggested we are heading for another 2017 style result if there were a general election tomorrow.
Not anti- English at all SNP supporter approvingly posts tweet calling for English national flag to be banned 🤔
It was the St Pauli bit to which I was referring, couldn’t give a fuck about the opinion of a US rock musician resident in Berlin on the ‘English national flag’.
Thin skinned obsessives gotta obsess I guess.
Very self aware your last sentence there. Credit to you for being so honest and reflective.
Ah, the old ‘I’ve turned your own words back on you, haw, haw, that larned ye!’
Funny how our ‘exchanges’ almost always centre on you latching onto one of my posts.
Incredible. You've finally worked out how a message board operates. Yes indeed, people read posts, and then they respond to them! Next you'll be figuring out how hyperlinks work. Keep it up!
Hey, I get it, with Malc absent you need your stalk a racist-against-the-English Nat fix. Pleased that I can give you an opportunity to scratch that itch.
Has something happened to Malc?
He messaged me to say that he's taking a rest from PB because he's getting perpetual 24hr bans while other folk seem to be getting away with murder. Malc and the missus are both fine and vaccinated btw.
Glad to hear that they are well. Sorry to hear he's stepping back. I enjoy his posts.
He doesn't help himself though. He's extremely aggressive.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
Wasn't there a poll last weekend that filtered out the 2019 Lab -> Con seats and showed Labour doing really well in them?
Yes, it showed Labour ahead in Tory gains in 2019 even if the Tories were still comfortable ahead in Tory holds in 2019, which suggested we are heading for another 2017 style result if there were a general election tomorrow yes.
You're talking about unweighted sub-samples of under 10% of the poll ?????
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
American democracy is just completely fecked. And the Republican party (within the context of a functioning democracy) even more so. They have no policy platform whatsover beyond "pro guns (and by extension ANY measure taken to control their misuse", "anti-abortion", and "owning the liberals/"radical extremist left" (aka "Democrats") - not that this can be considered a 'policy platform'. And many of their current "public faces" are in danger of elevating the likes of Bridgen and Francois to Brain of Britain standards.
OK, pushing it a bit on the last point, but got to stand up for the traditional British court jesters.
The GoP is certainly split and until recently I was unsure as to how this would be resolved.
My money is on O'Connell. He is purely interested in power and if he thought allying with Trump were a credible long-term policy he would have gone that way. His openly declared hostility to The Orange One indicates to me that he thinks the traditional Republican Party will succeed in the end.
The strategy seems to be to ignore Trump as far as possible and operate through traditional Party workers. Trump supporters may make a lot of noise but they don't do much work, rather like Trump himself.
If that's the strategy it seems like wishful thinking. Whether they do much (useful) work or not is an open question. It seems likely that in large part the "traditional" party workers have either jumped ship, or have gone over fully to Trump. And it is true that they perhaps don't do much work. But what they do work very hard at is driving opponents and dissenters into submission.
It's very easy to look at what is going on within political parties over here, and extrapolate to what is going on in America. There are often similarities, but also vast vast differences.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller lead it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
Well you don't have to go far from your neck of the Forest to find the reverse examples.
Ilford North was Conservative in 2005 and Labour in 2019.
Enfield North would have been Conservative on the current boundaries in 2001 but went Labour in 2015.
Chingford had a much smaller Conservative majority in 2019 than in 1997.
Ilford North stayed Tory in 2010, Enfield North went Tory in 2010, they only went Labour in 2015 when there was a 0.3% swing to Labour UK wide (most Tory gains in 2015 came from the LDs not Labour).
Chingford stayed Tory in 2019 even if demographically it has shifted Labour
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
Wasn't there a poll last weekend that filtered out the 2019 Lab -> Con seats and showed Labour doing really well in them?
Yes, it showed Labour ahead in Tory gains in 2019 even if the Tories were still comfortable ahead in Tory holds in 2019, which suggested we are heading for another 2017 style result if there were a general election tomorrow yes.
You're talking about unweighted sub-samples of under 10% of the poll ?????
It reflects the fact most polls show a clear swing to Labour since 2019, even if the Tories are 2-3% ahead nationally that could still see them lose their majority and be back to 2017 hung parliament territory
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Another UK tech company (Cazoo) chooses New York for its listing meaning domestic UK investors will miss out on future dividends and growth from a UK focussed business.
The chancellor needs to figure this out yesterday, we can't keep losing out to New York for these listings. The rules are just far, far too strict and we need to be able to get dual share structures and enable a larger level loss making for tech startups which have investor backing.
I'd actually call it the single most critical issue the chancellor has in his in-tray right now outside of the pandemic stuff.
There are other reasons - principally the far larger size of the US tech market (and investor appetite) - which is especially true if the biotech sector - but absolutely agree with you on this.
I'm fine with relaxing rules that make no sense, especially now we've no longer got Brussels producing more and more of them, but UK investors can invest in overseas markets if they choose. We don't have exchange controls any more. I think companies choose to list in the US much more because of its much greater understanding of early stage companies.
@AndyJS Some classic comments on that thread. Lots of posters who are no longer on here, sadly, regulars who still are and some who seem similar to recent newcomers:
"170. As my comment last night expressed, I WANT lefties and greens and whatever to come on here and give me a good argument. That’s why I am here, not Conhome or whatever. And I never ask for a commenter to be banned.
But I do ask not to have my favourite site ruined by a brood of ugly, smelly, pungent, jabbering Scot Nat chimps, publicly grooming each other for the lice of their constitutional neuroses, then thrusting these weevils under our noses like we are meant to be impressed.
Get back in your cage and shut up, or get your own blog where you can wank each other silly about your exciting referendum which will never happen.
"Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s £2bn council tax bombshell in the middle of a pandemic isn’t just economically illiterate – it’s wrong. The chancellor should be building up confidence in the economy and supporting families to get through the worst economic crisis of any major economy."
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
On older voters, I think Starmer should be brave. Just before the 2017 election, my dad got chatting to a guy (late 60s) in the pub. He told my dad that he was voting labour for the first time in his life because he didn’t want his grandchildren to pay tuition fees.
Now, clearly there would be issues if fees were scrapped entirely, but the point is that the way to win older voters isn’t necessarily through bribing them. They care about their children and grandchildren.
The idea that young people are intrinsically hard-Left is - in my view - misplaced.
Think of it from their point of view: when they are voting against tuition fees (an extra 9% of their salary above £26k being taken from their paypacket forevermore) they are voting for a tax cut.
The left position generally is to be happy with tax cuts for yourself, but not with public expenditure cuts, quite the reverse, (eg adding fees to the public purse bill), but the left support, of course, someone else - the idle rich, small businesses, your grandad etc, paying the larger tax bill.
This really is a fantastic story. Half the country reading it must have been double checking the date. I just don't see where the newspapers go on April 1st now.
I get the feeling the original proposal did not get enough of a 'Boris is proposing WHAT as a ridiculous pie in the sky infrastructure project?' reaction, so he's kicked it up a notch.
The BBC's Andrew Marr also asks the health secretary how many cases of the problematic South Africa variant there are in England at the moment.
Matt Hancock says: "In total we've seen around 300 but most of those are historic cases from over a month ago and the latest data shows there are a dozen new ones so a much, much smaller number.
"And each time we find a new one we absolutely clamp down on it with enhanced contract tracing."
Marr asks if the spread of the South Africa variant is "shrinking".
Hancock replies: "I think that's a good summary yes".
He says there were fewer cases coming into the country thanks to tougher border restrictions.
Certainly good news.
I wonder if the South Africa variant is less contagious than the UK variant.
Haven’t watched Marr yet but he gave a similar snippet on Sophy Ridge.
Sounds like very good, very important news.
I suspected it may have been less contagious as the SA figures didn't show a massive leap like the UK figures after the Kent Covid was identified.
"Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s £2bn council tax bombshell in the middle of a pandemic isn’t just economically illiterate – it’s wrong. The chancellor should be building up confidence in the economy and supporting families to get through the worst economic crisis of any major economy."
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
When was the last time Labour supported an actual tax rise for an identifiable group of voters who might vote Labour?
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
o/t but very interesting as relevant to frequent dfiscussions on here about fishing and the devastation caused for that industry by Brexit, especially the inshore lot. I hadn't known about this.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller lead it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
Well you don't have to go far from your neck of the Forest to find the reverse examples.
Ilford North was Conservative in 2005 and Labour in 2019.
Enfield North would have been Conservative on the current boundaries in 2001 but went Labour in 2015.
Chingford had a much smaller Conservative majority in 2019 than in 1997.
Ilford North stayed Tory in 2010, Enfield North went Tory in 2010, they only went Labour in 2015 when there was a 0.3% swing to Labour UK wide (most Tory gains in 2015 came from the LDs not Labour).
Chingford stayed Tory in 2019 even if demographically it has shifted Labour
I see you're intent on proving CR correct.
Far from it, 2015 had a swing to Labour nationwide, in 2019 Chingford stayed Tory because of the swing to the Tories nationwide, even if demographically it is trending Labour
"Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s £2bn council tax bombshell in the middle of a pandemic isn’t just economically illiterate – it’s wrong. The chancellor should be building up confidence in the economy and supporting families to get through the worst economic crisis of any major economy."
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
I'd be very surprised if most Labour run councils were not raising council tax, and supportive of anything central government might offer to have more. But politically it's an easy target for any national opposition.
Makes me wonder what Mr Johnson is trying to hide that shares the same google search terms (like "bus" when he was going on about making cardboard buses).
"Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s £2bn council tax bombshell in the middle of a pandemic isn’t just economically illiterate – it’s wrong. The chancellor should be building up confidence in the economy and supporting families to get through the worst economic crisis of any major economy."
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
And in the brave new post Covid world does £2bn really qualify as a "bombshell"? Feels more like petty cash to me.
On topic, a useful and interesting thread, as usual with detailed electoral analysis from the writer. As others have commented, these really show Labour's problems with small town and rural Britain, especially England.
I get why Keith didn't mention Brexit - people think you're trying to unpick leaving the EU. The debate has long moved on (unless you are a hard Brexit/Remain crazy) to the world after Brexit. Starmer understands that business is key - far more so apparently than the Tories do. If Starmer could apply a forensic analysis of the economic problems and work with business on ways to fix them, he absolutely could out-manuever the Tories.
The problem of course is that he can't do that. To side with business is to side with crony capitalism which has to be brought down. Nor could he side with the kind of Peter Mandleson figure needed to get the message across to business that Labour gets them.
This *could* be an opportunity for the LibDems. There is a vacuum at the heart of the British Polity and things get sucked into that space. Someone will have to start speaking up for jobs and prosperity. As the Tories won't and Labour can't, that suggests a 3rd party.
And yet Starmer proposed Flagshagging Bonds that compete with private sector investment funds and banks that will end up costing the nation billions in unnecessary interest payments and capital losses.
He's got no answers. Completely and utterly clueless. One of the biggest issues facing us right now is that our most productive sectors are tech and fintech but they all choose to list in the US meaning UK based investment funds such as pensions are completely missing out on potential dividends and capital growth from our two highest growth sectors, we're not benefiting from our own economy as much as we could. What is Starmer proposing to ensure that we do?
Nothing, because nobody but briefcase wankers who vote tory anyway gives a fuck about it.
Sure, but isn't Keith supposed to be some kind of forensic investigator?
Why do you not use his name. Is it just a derogatory term.
Just like many other posters refer to 'Bozo'. Here is your chance to condemn them.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Not anti- English at all SNP supporter approvingly posts tweet calling for English national flag to be banned 🤔
It was the St Pauli bit to which I was referring, couldn’t give a fuck about the opinion of a US rock musician resident in Berlin on the ‘English national flag’.
Thin skinned obsessives gotta obsess I guess.
Very self aware your last sentence there. Credit to you for being so honest and reflective.
Ah, the old ‘I’ve turned your own words back on you, haw, haw, that larned ye!’
Funny how our ‘exchanges’ almost always centre on you latching onto one of my posts.
Incredible. You've finally worked out how a message board operates. Yes indeed, people read posts, and then they respond to them! Next you'll be figuring out how hyperlinks work. Keep it up!
Hey, I get it, with Malc absent you need your stalk a racist-against-the-English Nat fix. Pleased that I can give you an opportunity to scratch that itch.
Has something happened to Malc?
He messaged me to say that he's taking a rest from PB because he's getting perpetual 24hr bans while other folk seem to be getting away with murder. Malc and the missus are both fine and vaccinated btw.
Can you blame him? Faced daily with the Kumbaya PB Sextet any sane person would lose it occasionally. A wit like his is rare
Let's not make a martyr of Malc, I doubt that's the sort of thing he would want or need. He's always aggressive, that's his style, and fair play we don't want just milquetoast automatons, and he can take it as well as give it rather than those who give but not take, but it's pretty self evident that if you are aggressive you are more likely to cross the line. Certain people periodically have to start up new identities as a result.
........The night of the Armageddon attack on Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 I had tickets to see Billy Connolly on stage. There was a very subdued atmosphere. There was a rumour he might not turn up.
.....We took our seats. After about ten minutes a stony faced Connolly walked onto stage and waved away the clapping. He just stood there for what seemed like an age......
'Fockin' shit'. He said. You could hear a pin drop. No one wanted to be there.
The BBC's Andrew Marr also asks the health secretary how many cases of the problematic South Africa variant there are in England at the moment.
Matt Hancock says: "In total we've seen around 300 but most of those are historic cases from over a month ago and the latest data shows there are a dozen new ones so a much, much smaller number.
"And each time we find a new one we absolutely clamp down on it with enhanced contract tracing."
Marr asks if the spread of the South Africa variant is "shrinking".
Hancock replies: "I think that's a good summary yes".
He says there were fewer cases coming into the country thanks to tougher border restrictions.
Certainly good news.
I wonder if the South Africa variant is less contagious than the UK variant.
The fall in cases in South Africa itself is certainly evidence that it can be contained.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
o/t but very interesting as relevant to frequent dfiscussions on here about fishing and the devastation caused for that industry by Brexit, especially the inshore lot. I hadn't known about this.
"Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s £2bn council tax bombshell in the middle of a pandemic isn’t just economically illiterate – it’s wrong. The chancellor should be building up confidence in the economy and supporting families to get through the worst economic crisis of any major economy."
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
And in the brave new post Covid world does £2bn really qualify as a "bombshell"? Feels more like petty cash to me.
To be fair this is real money. So it's a lot. It's only petty cash if the Government decided that it shouldn't happen and they were going to increase borrowing instead.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
I get the feeling the original proposal did not get enough of a 'Boris is proposing WHAT as a ridiculous pie in the sky infrastructure project?' reaction, so he's kicked it up a notch.
Maybe they're trying to get to the point where the "tow the island of Ireland closer to Britain" proposal comes out better in the cost-benefit analysis.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Voters in towns back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Does the story say if Mr J asked the Manx government? It's not in the UK so he can't boss it around. And he's ****ed if they say no to the application for planning permission.
The Customs and legal implications are horrendous - it's a border already and now it goes through something that isn't even part of the UK. Two borders in one trip, or is it more? Maybe that's the cardboard bus/Brexit bus slogan strategy, just drown the difficult word 'border'.
On topic, a useful and interesting thread, as usual with detailed electoral analysis from the writer. As others have commented, these really show Labour's problems with small town and rural Britain, especially England.
I get why Keith didn't mention Brexit - people think you're trying to unpick leaving the EU. The debate has long moved on (unless you are a hard Brexit/Remain crazy) to the world after Brexit. Starmer understands that business is key - far more so apparently than the Tories do. If Starmer could apply a forensic analysis of the economic problems and work with business on ways to fix them, he absolutely could out-manuever the Tories.
The problem of course is that he can't do that. To side with business is to side with crony capitalism which has to be brought down. Nor could he side with the kind of Peter Mandleson figure needed to get the message across to business that Labour gets them.
This *could* be an opportunity for the LibDems. There is a vacuum at the heart of the British Polity and things get sucked into that space. Someone will have to start speaking up for jobs and prosperity. As the Tories won't and Labour can't, that suggests a 3rd party.
And yet Starmer proposed Flagshagging Bonds that compete with private sector investment funds and banks that will end up costing the nation billions in unnecessary interest payments and capital losses.
He's got no answers. Completely and utterly clueless. One of the biggest issues facing us right now is that our most productive sectors are tech and fintech but they all choose to list in the US meaning UK based investment funds such as pensions are completely missing out on potential dividends and capital growth from our two highest growth sectors, we're not benefiting from our own economy as much as we could. What is Starmer proposing to ensure that we do?
Nothing, because nobody but briefcase wankers who vote tory anyway gives a fuck about it.
Sure, but isn't Keith supposed to be some kind of forensic investigator?
Why do you not use his name. Is it just a derogatory term.
Just like many other posters refer to 'Bozo'. Here is your chance to condemn them.
I saw someone get called out for calling him “Johnson” rather than “Boris” - which was a bit rich.
o/t but very interesting as relevant to frequent dfiscussions on here about fishing and the devastation caused for that industry by Brexit, especially the inshore lot. I hadn't known about this.
Quite, but never seen any mentions. I've signed up for the daily newsletter to get a feel for it. Ourt existing fish van is fine but the range is limited, so I'll be interested to see if there is a local supplier and how they despatch it.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
The problem with that view is that as the Conservative local base is destroyed and new non-Conservative administrations start doing things people like (as distinct from what's right but that's populism for you and it cuts both ways), it becomes more difficult for the sitting Conservative MP to defend the Government line so either he/she goes native in order to survive or faces losing his/her seat at the next election.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
Not anti- English at all SNP supporter approvingly posts tweet calling for English national flag to be banned 🤔
It was the St Pauli bit to which I was referring, couldn’t give a fuck about the opinion of a US rock musician resident in Berlin on the ‘English national flag’.
Thin skinned obsessives gotta obsess I guess.
Very self aware your last sentence there. Credit to you for being so honest and reflective.
Ah, the old ‘I’ve turned your own words back on you, haw, haw, that larned ye!’
Funny how our ‘exchanges’ almost always centre on you latching onto one of my posts.
Incredible. You've finally worked out how a message board operates. Yes indeed, people read posts, and then they respond to them! Next you'll be figuring out how hyperlinks work. Keep it up!
Hey, I get it, with Malc absent you need your stalk a racist-against-the-English Nat fix. Pleased that I can give you an opportunity to scratch that itch.
Has something happened to Malc?
He messaged me to say that he's taking a rest from PB because he's getting perpetual 24hr bans while other folk seem to be getting away with murder. Malc and the missus are both fine and vaccinated btw.
Can you blame him? Faced daily with the Kumbaya PB Sextet any sane person would lose it occasionally. A wit like his is rare
Let's not make a martyr of Malc, I doubt that's the sort of thing he would want or need. He's always aggressive, that's his style, and fair play we don't want just milquetoast automatons, and he can take it as well as give it rather than those who give but not take, but it's pretty self evident that if you are aggressive you are more likely to cross the line. Certain people periodically have to start up new identities as a result.
Yes, and there's an important difference. It's fine to attack people's arguments ruthlessly, but there's no reason to abuse people personally. He didn't seem to grasp that distinction.
I think general elections are won on one or two of the following factors:
Personality Performance Policies Positioning
Personality needs to be positive, appealing and in permanent campaigning mode. Johnson has it. Trump had it. Sturgeon has it. Starmer hasn't. Davey hasn't.
Performance is a mixture of gripping success/failure stories, a longer term narrative, and a perception of the "team". Trust is important too.
Policies are policies. Meh. Unless a particular policy is weaponised by the opposition. Policies are best avoided.
Positioning. It used to be workers versus capital. Now it is more identity conservatives (white, non graduates who feel threatened by changes) versus conviction liberals (white urban graduates) and necessity liberals (ethnic minorities who feel they need liberal protection but may not be socially liberal themselves).
You can apply this framework to England, US, Scotland (positioning is nationalism) and other nations.
Applying this to England:
Labour (and LibDems) can't win on personality! But NB it is possible to defeat personality using other factors viz Trump. Labour has a chance on performance. Johnson is riding high at the moment on vaccines but he has a crap cabinet and events dear boy. Starmer needs to strengthen his shadow cabinet and give them space to shine. The policies are almost indistinguishable and not a basis of competition but might provide pooh traps. Best avoided. Positioning: Starmer is trying to straddle both camps. Triangulation. But he may end up antagonising both. Vote Conservative is you want conservative values. Vote LIbDem if you want liberal values. NB Identity conservatives used to be in the majority (white non-graduates) but are quite rapidly shrinking as a proportion of the population. That is why they feel threatened. They are not just Labour working class. Lots of Tories too.
My conclusion Tory best strategy is personality and positioning (the Trump strategy) Labour best strategy is performance. LibDem best strategy is positioning
PS I've just made this up. Nothing better to do on a lockdown Sunday. But I like frameworks. They help me think.
Looks like a thread header to me
I considered offering it! But I'm shy.
Go for it. Brilliant. But I think you underestimate the place of policy for Labour. There has to be a strong retail offer for ordinary apparently a-political people to vote for. And any sort of threat (separatism within GB, wokes in charge, the left, the 'Tory vermin' tendency - 'only idiots vote Tory, please, idiot, change and vote for us') has to be neutralised. This can only be done by the strength of the front bench - nowhere close yet - constantly seeming like a better government so that people can forget it's the party of Pidcock and Burgon.
Extremism is a vote loser but a "strong retail offer" will not materialize if the party closes down its left flank. A killer policy from Labour has to be anathema to the Cons. Therefore it must come from the left. The notion of Labour stumbling on a brand new big idea that is just objectively great and affordable and everyone's a winner - the Tories going "Oh gosh, wish we'd thought of that, too late now" - is far fetched in the extreme.
Especially if it's related to the economy. This is the drawback with centrist "moderate" politics. It's too preoccupied with fine differences on the anodyne topic of macroeconomic management. This might sound like it ought to be what government is about but it isn't. Long term sustainable economic performance, GDP growth, is largely unaffected by whether Labour or the Conservatives are in power. It depends on factors outside their control.
The pandemic is just the latest (extreme) example of this. Domestic political choices don't matter much. Even one as huge and contra the interests of the UK economy such as Brexit will only have an impact on the margins. So I have little interest in hearing about how Labour (or the Cons) plan to "grow the economy." It goes without saying that they want to grow the economy. It's motherhood and apple pie. And the economy will have its own ideas.
Labour policies should flow from the core mission of the party, which is to fight inequalities of class, race and gender. That is the USP and if they ditch this, or start to pay it only lip service, they might as well call it a day. The party and the movement do not exist for the primary purpose of getting Keir Starmer into Downing St. They exist to promote a more egalitarian society.
Yvette Cooper slightly ahead in Rentoul's online poll of who should replace Dodds as Shadow CoE.
I honestly believe Labour have got to stop looking to the past.
Surrounding Starmer with Blairite and Brownite retreads is a desperate, losing strategy.
Labour really should have gone with a female leader last time. However, now they have acquired the world's most tedious leader, Labour should at least surround him with fresh, exciting, young, new voices & talent.
A Biden-like argument, that SKS is a transitional figure to a younger generation, might then work.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller lead it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
Well you don't have to go far from your neck of the Forest to find the reverse examples.
Ilford North was Conservative in 2005 and Labour in 2019.
Enfield North would have been Conservative on the current boundaries in 2001 but went Labour in 2015.
Chingford had a much smaller Conservative majority in 2019 than in 1997.
Ilford North stayed Tory in 2010, Enfield North went Tory in 2010, they only went Labour in 2015 when there was a 0.3% swing to Labour UK wide (most Tory gains in 2015 came from the LDs not Labour).
Chingford stayed Tory in 2019 even if demographically it has shifted Labour
I see you're intent on proving CR correct.
Far from it, 2015 had a swing to Labour nationwide, in 2019 Chingford stayed Tory because of the swing to the Tories nationwide, even if demographically it is trending Labour
Yet in 2015 the Conservatives also made some gains from Labour.
Which offers yet more evidence that individual constituencies and regions can go against the national trend.
Likewise in 2017 there was a national swing from Conservative to Labour but the Conservatives still made some gains from Labour.
And in 2019 there was a national swing from Labour to the Conservatives but Labour gained Putney from the Conservatives.
"Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s £2bn council tax bombshell in the middle of a pandemic isn’t just economically illiterate – it’s wrong. The chancellor should be building up confidence in the economy and supporting families to get through the worst economic crisis of any major economy."
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
And in the brave new post Covid world does £2bn really qualify as a "bombshell"? Feels more like petty cash to me.
My Council tax might go up £70, frankly, if that's the cost of COVID...
Not anti- English at all SNP supporter approvingly posts tweet calling for English national flag to be banned 🤔
It was the St Pauli bit to which I was referring, couldn’t give a fuck about the opinion of a US rock musician resident in Berlin on the ‘English national flag’.
Thin skinned obsessives gotta obsess I guess.
Very self aware your last sentence there. Credit to you for being so honest and reflective.
Ah, the old ‘I’ve turned your own words back on you, haw, haw, that larned ye!’
Funny how our ‘exchanges’ almost always centre on you latching onto one of my posts.
Incredible. You've finally worked out how a message board operates. Yes indeed, people read posts, and then they respond to them! Next you'll be figuring out how hyperlinks work. Keep it up!
Hey, I get it, with Malc absent you need your stalk a racist-against-the-English Nat fix. Pleased that I can give you an opportunity to scratch that itch.
Has something happened to Malc?
He messaged me to say that he's taking a rest from PB because he's getting perpetual 24hr bans while other folk seem to be getting away with murder. Malc and the missus are both fine and vaccinated btw.
Can you blame him? Faced daily with the Kumbaya PB Sextet any sane person would lose it occasionally. A wit like his is rare
Let's not make a martyr of Malc, I doubt that's the sort of thing he would want or need. He's always aggressive, that's his style, and fair play we don't want just milquetoast automatons, and he can take it as well as give it rather than those who give but not take, but it's pretty self evident that if you are aggressive you are more likely to cross the line. Certain people periodically have to start up new identities as a result.
Yes, and there's an important difference. It's fine to attack people's arguments ruthlessly, but there's no reason to abuse people personally. He didn't seem to grasp that distinction.
Pb is mainly middle class pearl clutchers though. The stuff people take umbrage over on here is absolutely nothing compared to paint stripping banter on the football and car communities I frequent online.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Voters in towns back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Voters in towns back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller lead it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
Well you don't have to go far from your neck of the Forest to find the reverse examples.
Ilford North was Conservative in 2005 and Labour in 2019.
Enfield North would have been Conservative on the current boundaries in 2001 but went Labour in 2015.
Chingford had a much smaller Conservative majority in 2019 than in 1997.
Ilford North stayed Tory in 2010, Enfield North went Tory in 2010, they only went Labour in 2015 when there was a 0.3% swing to Labour UK wide (most Tory gains in 2015 came from the LDs not Labour).
Chingford stayed Tory in 2019 even if demographically it has shifted Labour
I see you're intent on proving CR correct.
Far from it, 2015 had a swing to Labour nationwide, in 2019 Chingford stayed Tory because of the swing to the Tories nationwide, even if demographically it is trending Labour
Yet in 2015 the Conservatives also made some gains from Labour.
Which offers yet more evidence that individual constituencies and regions can go against the national trend.
Likewise in 2017 there was a national swing from Conservative to Labour but the Conservatives still made some gains from Labour.
And in 2019 there was a national swing from Labour to the Conservatives but Labour gained Putney from the Conservatives.
The swing in 2015 was 0.6% to Labour and in 2017 was 2.05% to Labour, even in 2019 it was only 4.55% to the Tories.
In 2010 though the swing was 4.9% to the Tories and in 1997 10% to Labour.
Which suggests while a handful of seats might go against the trend on swings of 4.5% or less, once you get to a swing of about 4.5% or more every seat will only go one way
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Voters in towns back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
Most towns don't have any. I wonder if the pollees knew that? Even cities don't - eg Nottingham had GB, Derby and Leicester do not.
It's mainly a bizarre mental artefact that only exists in people's imagination, like The Shire of the Hobbits.
I hope they did not tell them how nasty quite a lot of it round London can be.
Except where people actually want to live, namely around London and a few prosperous cities like Oxford.
It doesn't though. It's really a model of Agatha Christie's England, combined with containing the growth of industrial cities as they were in 1950.
Oxford f*cked up quite badly a few years ago, when they regulated their rental so incompetently that it was difficult to do conversions etc, and they made it difficult for their graduate workforce to have places to live. The twots on the Council ended up campaigning to build on Greenbelt belonging to other authorities.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
But vehicles are switching fast to zero emissions and delivery companies are likely to switch to all electric before consumers will.
The Czech Republic on Saturday recorded 6755 confirmed cases of coronavirus, about 1,600 more than a week ago.
The share of newly infected in the number of tests performed was also higher, reaching almost 38%, which is the highest share since 9 January. It was 30% last Saturday, the news website Aktuálně reported.
The number of hospitalised people with Covid-19 fell to 6,000 on Saturday, but the number of patients in serious condition remains at a record number of around 1,300.
Currently, almost 119,000 people in the country are infected, the highest number since last October.
IIRC Czechia is also one of the slowest vaccinators in Europe.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
I'm a bit sceptical about that, to be honest. That said, I wonder if a rise in fuel duty might be on the agenda for the budget. Fuel is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago (that was a big thing in the cost of living crisis - the collapse in oil prices in Autumn 2014 was a godsend for the Tories). Now might be a good time to put it up a bit.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
And if they already own their own home and see the green field being built on behind them for new housing they may well then switch from voting Tory at local level to voting LD or Independent at local level in protest.
If they then continue that habit a local level to national level then the Tories have a problem, even if they win over a few more younger voters who might get on the property ladder in the process (and the latter group if they do become homeowners are less likely to be fearful of losing the value in their new asset under Starmer Labour than Corbyn Labour anyway, remember in 1997 Blair won those who owned with a mortgage by a 10% margin).
On topic, a useful and interesting thread, as usual with detailed electoral analysis from the writer. As others have commented, these really show Labour's problems with small town and rural Britain, especially England.
I get why Keith didn't mention Brexit - people think you're trying to unpick leaving the EU. The debate has long moved on (unless you are a hard Brexit/Remain crazy) to the world after Brexit. Starmer understands that business is key - far more so apparently than the Tories do. If Starmer could apply a forensic analysis of the economic problems and work with business on ways to fix them, he absolutely could out-manuever the Tories.
The problem of course is that he can't do that. To side with business is to side with crony capitalism which has to be brought down. Nor could he side with the kind of Peter Mandleson figure needed to get the message across to business that Labour gets them.
This *could* be an opportunity for the LibDems. There is a vacuum at the heart of the British Polity and things get sucked into that space. Someone will have to start speaking up for jobs and prosperity. As the Tories won't and Labour can't, that suggests a 3rd party.
And yet Starmer proposed Flagshagging Bonds that compete with private sector investment funds and banks that will end up costing the nation billions in unnecessary interest payments and capital losses.
He's got no answers. Completely and utterly clueless. One of the biggest issues facing us right now is that our most productive sectors are tech and fintech but they all choose to list in the US meaning UK based investment funds such as pensions are completely missing out on potential dividends and capital growth from our two highest growth sectors, we're not benefiting from our own economy as much as we could. What is Starmer proposing to ensure that we do?
Nothing, because nobody but briefcase wankers who vote tory anyway gives a fuck about it.
Sure, but isn't Keith supposed to be some kind of forensic investigator?
Why do you not use his name. Is it just a derogatory term.
Calling political opponents silly names is not exactly new, nor confined to SKS. Think of BoZo, Gideon, Bliar, etc.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
A dry legal analysis explaining the issues to the (mainly employer but not exclusively) layperson potential client. My view is that the law is an absolute mess on this issue. For example “workers” (as some statutes define them) who are not employees don’t have to be paid through PAYE - but are nevertheless entitled to holiday pay and national minimum wage. So they get some employment protections plus the tax advantages of being self employed. However, they don’t get unfair dismissal rights, Further, the definition of “worker” as opposed to “employee” in discrimination legislation is not the same as the definition in other legislation like the Employment Rights Act (which enshrines unfair dismissal) and retained statute deriving from EU law. Also, being on a zero hours contract doesn’t necessarily preclude being an employee, although the term is synonymous with the gig economy. It’s a horror show but it largely keeps me in business.
Matthew Taylor had a go at sorting it all out three or four years ago but was mostly ignored by the government.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
I'm a bit sceptical about that, to be honest. That said, I wonder if a rise in fuel duty might be on the agenda for the budget. Fuel is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago (that was a big thing in the cost of living crisis - the collapse in oil prices in Autumn 2014 was a godsend for the Tories). Now might be a good time to put it up a bit.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
Bad idea I think.
As we enter a post pandemic boom there's every chance the fuel price will start rising again soon. It's already gone up 10p per litre in my area over the past two months.
If the tax goes up people blame the generic price rise upon the tax too. So the government takes ownership of all the price increase.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Or age. But lots of cross-correlation there, I guess. Most over 65s own their own home. Most under 35s do not.
In terms of numbers, the Met is back to its 2016 levels and is closing on 33.000 officers so it's at a level of strength not matched in recent times.
I imagine if you asked most Londoners they'd say Police numbers were falling but that just isn't true. The problem is one of perception - you don't see beat patrol officers, instead they ride around in vans. That operational change from pioneered by a previous Home Secretary in the Coalition years - not sure what happened to her.
The other perception issue has been the closure of Police stations many of which were no longer fit for purpose. That has an Operational impact in terms of the amount of time it takes an arresting officer(s) to deal with a prisoner (and therefore the time they aren't available for general duties).
The importance of cultural context. I wonder just how many Brazilians have ever heard of the KKK, let alone have our level of instinctive reaction against that costume.
Looking at the graphic mascot, I wonder if they were going for a Jasper the Ghost vibe.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
I'm a bit sceptical about that, to be honest. That said, I wonder if a rise in fuel duty might be on the agenda for the budget. Fuel is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago (that was a big thing in the cost of living crisis - the collapse in oil prices in Autumn 2014 was a godsend for the Tories). Now might be a good time to put it up a bit.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
Bad idea I think.
As we enter a post pandemic boom there's every chance the fuel price will start rising again soon. It's already gone up 10p per litre in my area over the past two months.
If the tax goes up people blame the generic price rise upon the tax too. So the government takes ownership of all the price increase.
I've been argung that for a bit, given how far it has fallen behind inflation.
As one of my Goverment Funds Recovery post-Covid I would hike fuel tax for the next few years.
A few billion a year, and an incentive to go for a zero emissons car.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Or age. But lots of cross-correlation there, I guess. Most over 65s own their own home. Most under 35s do not.
Precisely. The age crossover of voting goes up and down with the home ownership crossover rate.
I think general elections are won on one or two of the following factors:
Personality Performance Policies Positioning
Personality needs to be positive, appealing and in permanent campaigning mode. Johnson has it. Trump had it. Sturgeon has it. Starmer hasn't. Davey hasn't.
Performance is a mixture of gripping success/failure stories, a longer term narrative, and a perception of the "team". Trust is important too.
Policies are policies. Meh. Unless a particular policy is weaponised by the opposition. Policies are best avoided.
Positioning. It used to be workers versus capital. Now it is more identity conservatives (white, non graduates who feel threatened by changes) versus conviction liberals (white urban graduates) and necessity liberals (ethnic minorities who feel they need liberal protection but may not be socially liberal themselves).
You can apply this framework to England, US, Scotland (positioning is nationalism) and other nations.
Applying this to England:
Labour (and LibDems) can't win on personality! But NB it is possible to defeat personality using other factors viz Trump. Labour has a chance on performance. Johnson is riding high at the moment on vaccines but he has a crap cabinet and events dear boy. Starmer needs to strengthen his shadow cabinet and give them space to shine. The policies are almost indistinguishable and not a basis of competition but might provide pooh traps. Best avoided. Positioning: Starmer is trying to straddle both camps. Triangulation. But he may end up antagonising both. Vote Conservative is you want conservative values. Vote LIbDem if you want liberal values. NB Identity conservatives used to be in the majority (white non-graduates) but are quite rapidly shrinking as a proportion of the population. That is why they feel threatened. They are not just Labour working class. Lots of Tories too.
My conclusion Tory best strategy is personality and positioning (the Trump strategy) Labour best strategy is performance. LibDem best strategy is positioning
PS I've just made this up. Nothing better to do on a lockdown Sunday. But I like frameworks. They help me think.
Looks like a thread header to me
I considered offering it! But I'm shy.
Go for it. Brilliant. But I think you underestimate the place of policy for Labour. There has to be a strong retail offer for ordinary apparently a-political people to vote for. And any sort of threat (separatism within GB, wokes in charge, the left, the 'Tory vermin' tendency - 'only idiots vote Tory, please, idiot, change and vote for us') has to be neutralised. This can only be done by the strength of the front bench - nowhere close yet - constantly seeming like a better government so that people can forget it's the party of Pidcock and Burgon.
Extremism is a vote loser but a "strong retail offer" will not materialize if the party closes down its left flank. A killer policy from Labour has to be anathema to the Cons. Therefore it must come from the left. The notion of Labour stumbling on a brand new big idea that is just objectively great and affordable and everyone's a winner - the Tories going "Oh gosh, wish we'd thought of that, too late now" - is far fetched in the extreme.
Especially if it's related to the economy. This is the drawback with centrist "moderate" politics. It's too preoccupied with fine differences on the anodyne topic of macroeconomic management. This might sound like it ought to be what government is about but it isn't. Long term sustainable economic performance, GDP growth, is largely unaffected by whether Labour or the Conservatives are in power. It depends on factors outside their control.
The pandemic is just the latest (extreme) example of this. Domestic political choices don't matter much. Even one as huge and contra the interests of the UK economy such as Brexit will only have an impact on the margins. So I have little interest in hearing about how Labour (or the Cons) plan to "grow the economy." It goes without saying that they want to grow the economy. It's motherhood and apple pie. And the economy will have its own ideas.
Labour policies should flow from the core mission of the party, which is to fight inequalities of class, race and gender. That is the USP and if they ditch this, or start to pay it only lip service, they might as well call it a day. The party and the movement do not exist for the primary purpose of getting Keir Starmer into Downing St. They exist to promote a more egalitarian society.
Thanks. Very interesting. Your description of Labour's core mission raises its own fundamental and fascinating questions. Inequality is similar to unfairness. we are all against it, or say we are. There is a but, in fact at least three.
Firstly, does Labour mostly mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? it seems to me the centre left/left can't make up its mind. The difference is not one of degree, it is a difference of kind. They are different animals altogether. I strongly support one but not the other. Many people think the same
Secondly, is equality/fairness about this country or about the world generally?
Thirdly, to increase equality of either sort (opportunity or outcome) those who have more (including most Labour members and all Labour politicians), everyone in a decent job, successful entrepreneurs etc will have to have relatively less as compared with those who currently have less (who must have more), either in terms of outcome or opportunity.
Do I see the Labour party as generally displaying that approach to life? No.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
When people talk about infrastructure, they are put off by the insane costs. Hundred of millions a mile.
What does it spent on? Layers of contracting, each one nice and profitable.
Another business that was built on layers of contracting - each layer taking a profit - was the space launch industry.
It wasn't very surprising that a certain mad billionaire went into the tunnel business.....
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
And if they already own their own home and see the green field being built on behind them for new housing they may well then switch from voting Tory at local level to voting LD or Independent at local level in protest.
If they then continue that habit a local level to national level then the Tories have a problem, even if they win over a few more younger voters who might get on the property ladder in the process (and the latter group if they do become homeowners are less likely to be fearful of losing the value in their new asset under Starmer Labour than Corbyn Labour anyway, remember in 1997 Blair won those who owned with a mortgage by a 10% margin).
Except there's no real long term evidence that people move against due to building. New housing gets approved and the people who objected just get on with their lives since it doesn't affect them very much - the people who actually own their new home though, their life is transformed and they change far more.
There is a reason seats in the South like Chingford are swinging away from the Tories relative to the rest of the country - and a reason why seats in the North are swinging towards them - and it is not because the Green Belt is getting built on in Chingford.
Quite frankly if the Tories are standing in the way of people owning their own home in the local area not only will they eventually lose - they will deserve to too.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
As an example of point 2 - Deliveroo riders are now worried that the new ruling will mean deliveroo will put them on a low salary structure and some kind of OTE based on delivery targets but not allow them to vary shift patterns so they can only work the 5pm-11pm peak time as they do now. As salaried employees they lose that ability to tell the company to get fucked if they are asked to work an 11am-5pm shift that will contribute nothing towards their OTE.
I still support the ruling and I'm glad that we're finally grasping the nettle of the gig economy but some people, especially in Labour, like to pretend that it's all downside all the time for the workers and the companies are all engaged in exploitation. I don't think that's a fair characterisation but if anyone points this out they get labelled as "Tory scum" etc... by your fellow travellers, Rochdale.
The importance of cultural context. I wonder just how many Brazilians have ever heard of the KKK, let alone have our level of instinctive reaction against that costume.
Looking at the graphic mascot, I wonder if they were going for a Jasper the Ghost vibe.
I quit my twitter account in 2014 because of a drunken row I was having about the Lewes fireworks and the KKK looking gentlemen involved. It started with someone complaining that the effigy they were burning that year was Alex Salmond, which they would never do with Cameron, and I replied that they had in fact sent DC up in flames just the previous year. Then they said that they were copying the KKK in their outfits, and I replied that the KKK didn’t dress like that until DW Griffith gave them costumes in ‘Birth of a Nation’ resembling Catholic penitents in Sergovia, which (ironically) the Lewes people were more likely to have copied. Then it got a bit nasty and personal - all from an account in my real name that I was supposed to be running professionally. I deleted the account before, thankfully, anyone appeared to have noticed but doubtless someone plotting my downfall has screenshots.
A very interesting article. The problem with looking at the 2019 results as a baseline is that we cannot be at all certain as to the extent those results - and indeed for 2017 - were distorted by the Brexit and Corbyn factors. Both are already pretty well 'water under the bridge' and will be much more so by 2024, but we simply don't know the extent to which those effects will unwind and take us back to a circa 2015 staus quo ante. It is entirely possible that in reality both Don Valley and Bishop Auckland - and indeed Sedgefield - are much more winnable for Labour than Wycombe which had actually trended to the Tories post 1950 with Labour not coming at all close even in 1966 and was only competitive in 1997 and 2001. Again only since 2015 does there appear to have been a pro-Labour trend there.Will that now reverse?
In terms of numbers, the Met is back to its 2016 levels and is closing on 33.000 officers so it's at a level of strength not matched in recent times.
I imagine if you asked most Londoners they'd say Police numbers were falling but that just isn't true. The problem is one of perception - you don't see beat patrol officers, instead they ride around in vans. That operational change from pioneered by a previous Home Secretary in the Coalition years - not sure what happened to her.
The other perception issue has been the closure of Police stations many of which were no longer fit for purpose. That has an Operational impact in terms of the amount of time it takes an arresting officer(s) to deal with a prisoner (and therefore the time they aren't available for general duties).
It doesn't help that Sadiq has got a while load of them chasing people who say mean things on Twitter and telling burglary victims to just make insurance claims.
He wants the stats so he can say arrests are up and it's easy to do that by arresting Twitter morons rather than staking out properties in the suburbs on streets targeted for robberies.
I wonder if there's still a bit of trouble ahead for some of the more northerly (and other extreme) parts of the country. It was noted earlier that Edinburgh cases have doubled in a week. Just as there is a danger of European complacency due to low exposure to date from the UK (Kent) variant, so the same could be true of Yorkshire/Scotland. There is a big danger of this being hidden by the headline numbers. Just as in May/June we could find the country opening up again on a London timetable to disastrous consequences elsewhere.
The importance of cultural context. I wonder just how many Brazilians have ever heard of the KKK, let alone have our level of instinctive reaction against that costume.
Looking at the graphic mascot, I wonder if they were going for a Jasper the Ghost vibe.
*Casper
The Spanish Inquisition predates the KKK by several hundred years (dunno if that's where they nicked it from), I believe the Portugese had their own version. The costume may ring a bell with Brazilians but with entirely different historical connotations.
Comments
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
The Supreme Court decision is a very important step in the right direction, arguably the most important Supreme Court decision for a very long time. But it should not stand alone. It should be buttressed by legislation which makes sure that risk is allocated not by economic power but by the ability to bear it. That will mean a few more pence on our cappuccinos (with or without chocolate), another quid on our bar meal and on the carry out, it might mean a few pence on each item from Amazon but if that is the price of people having some security, an ability to borrow, an ability to plan and some hope for the future we absolutely all need to pay it.
So far as the economy is going I am not so sure. For every self employed person like you and me who have taken a hit there is someone who has been on full salary and unable to spend it. There will be a lot of pent up demand.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
"SeanT was asking for someone to at least give him something to argue with, for a little sport"
"SeanTI think what this map underlines most effectively is just how many dismal little towns there are in England. What a depressing litany: Luton, Cleethorpes, Corby, Southport. St Austell is no looker either, despite being in Cornwall. Hereford, where I grew up, is nice but deadly dull.
Come friendly suicide bombers, and flatten them all"
"malcolmG: When the jessie boys are not at school the big boys come out to box their ears, get used to it or ask Sean to write a nasty post about us."
Kinsley is luxury compared to the utter shithole that Fitzwilliam is on the other side of the railway station
Atm, there is too much of talk of private jets, luxury food & high-end gentleman's tailoring. It is like an online version of a Gentleman's Club.
Immediate 24 hour ban should be handed out for bragging about Alpine skiing holidays, grand banquets, share portfolios or name-dropping.
Also for cricket, the world's most tedious game. Not for Malc's silver-tongued oratory.
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
It's very easy to look at what is going on within political parties over here, and extrapolate to what is going on in America. There are often similarities, but also vast vast differences.
https://twitter.com/BuggerLePanda/status/1363460394065551363?s=20
"170. As my comment last night expressed, I WANT lefties and greens and whatever to come on here and give me a good argument. That’s why I am here, not Conhome or whatever. And I never ask for a commenter to be banned.
But I do ask not to have my favourite site ruined by a brood of ugly, smelly, pungent, jabbering Scot Nat chimps, publicly grooming each other for the lice of their constitutional neuroses, then thrusting these weevils under our noses like we are meant to be impressed.
Get back in your cage and shut up, or get your own blog where you can wank each other silly about your exciting referendum which will never happen.
Thanks.
by SeanT September 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am"
I'm surprised Labour is opposing Council tax rises. Indeed I would have thought at least one new band would be a good way for Labour to help local Councils balance the books.
When are we getting one in Wales. What about the IoM-Ynys Mon tunnel?
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/21/from-the-docks-to-the-ebay-will-online-marketplaces-save-the-fishing-industry
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
Makes me wonder what Mr Johnson is trying to hide that shares the same google search terms (like "bus" when he was going on about making cardboard buses).
.....We took our seats. After about ten minutes a stony faced Connolly walked onto stage and waved away the clapping. He just stood there for what seemed like an age......
'Fockin' shit'. He said. You could hear a pin drop. No one wanted to be there.
'Fockin' shit' he repeated. Ages seemed to pass.
'You think it's bad for you. Do you?' he shouted.
'I've just bought a time share in Kabul'
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Voters in towns back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Future-of-Towns-Report.pdf (p32)
The Customs and legal implications are horrendous - it's a border already and now it goes through something that isn't even part of the UK. Two borders in one trip, or is it more? Maybe that's the cardboard bus/Brexit bus slogan strategy, just drown the difficult word 'border'.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
Especially if it's related to the economy. This is the drawback with centrist "moderate" politics. It's too preoccupied with fine differences on the anodyne topic of macroeconomic management. This might sound like it ought to be what government is about but it isn't. Long term sustainable economic performance, GDP growth, is largely unaffected by whether Labour or the Conservatives are in power. It depends on factors outside their control.
The pandemic is just the latest (extreme) example of this. Domestic political choices don't matter much. Even one as huge and contra the interests of the UK economy such as Brexit will only have an impact on the margins. So I have little interest in hearing about how Labour (or the Cons) plan to "grow the economy." It goes without saying that they want to grow the economy. It's motherhood and apple pie. And the economy will have its own ideas.
Labour policies should flow from the core mission of the party, which is to fight inequalities of class, race and gender. That is the USP and if they ditch this, or start to pay it only lip service, they might as well call it a day. The party and the movement do not exist for the primary purpose of getting Keir Starmer into Downing St. They exist to promote a more egalitarian society.
Surrounding Starmer with Blairite and Brownite retreads is a desperate, losing strategy.
Labour really should have gone with a female leader last time. However, now they have acquired the world's most tedious leader, Labour should at least surround him with fresh, exciting, young, new voices & talent.
A Biden-like argument, that SKS is a transitional figure to a younger generation, might then work.
1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order".
2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
Which offers yet more evidence that individual constituencies and regions can go against the national trend.
Likewise in 2017 there was a national swing from Conservative to Labour but the Conservatives still made some gains from Labour.
And in 2019 there was a national swing from Labour to the Conservatives but Labour gained Putney from the Conservatives.
Most towns don't have any. I wonder if the pollees knew that? Even cities don't - eg Nottingham had GB, Derby and Leicester do not.
It's mainly a bizarre mental artefact that only exists in people's imagination, like The Shire of the Hobbits.
I hope they did not tell them how nasty quite a lot of it round London can be.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Future-of-Towns-Report.pdf (p32).
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/feb/21/coronavirus-live-news-australia-begins-vaccine-rollout-israel-says-pfizer-jab-96-effective
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
In 2010 though the swing was 4.9% to the Tories and in 1997 10% to Labour.
Which suggests while a handful of seats might go against the trend on swings of 4.5% or less, once you get to a swing of about 4.5% or more every seat will only go one way
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
Oxford f*cked up quite badly a few years ago, when they regulated their rental so incompetently that it was difficult to do conversions etc, and they made it difficult for their graduate workforce to have places to live. The twots on the Council ended up campaigning to build on Greenbelt belonging to other authorities.
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1363463393722699777?s=19
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
So what's the problem?
The Czech Republic on Saturday recorded 6755 confirmed cases of coronavirus, about 1,600 more than a week ago.
The share of newly infected in the number of tests performed was also higher, reaching almost 38%, which is the highest share since 9 January. It was 30% last Saturday, the news website Aktuálně reported.
The number of hospitalised people with Covid-19 fell to 6,000 on Saturday, but the number of patients in serious condition remains at a record number of around 1,300.
Currently, almost 119,000 people in the country are infected, the highest number since last October.
IIRC Czechia is also one of the slowest vaccinators in Europe.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
If they then continue that habit a local level to national level then the Tories have a problem, even if they win over a few more younger voters who might get on the property ladder in the process (and the latter group if they do become homeowners are less likely to be fearful of losing the value in their new asset under Starmer Labour than Corbyn Labour anyway, remember in 1997 Blair won those who owned with a mortgage by a 10% margin).
Matthew Taylor had a go at sorting it all out three or four years ago but was mostly ignored by the government.
https://twitter.com/dontbetyet/status/1363467097792200707
As we enter a post pandemic boom there's every chance the fuel price will start rising again soon. It's already gone up 10p per litre in my area over the past two months.
If the tax goes up people blame the generic price rise upon the tax too. So the government takes ownership of all the price increase.
I imagine if you asked most Londoners they'd say Police numbers were falling but that just isn't true. The problem is one of perception - you don't see beat patrol officers, instead they ride around in vans. That operational change from pioneered by a previous Home Secretary in the Coalition years - not sure what happened to her.
The other perception issue has been the closure of Police stations many of which were no longer fit for purpose. That has an Operational impact in terms of the amount of time it takes an arresting officer(s) to deal with a prisoner (and therefore the time they aren't available for general duties).
Looking at the graphic mascot, I wonder if they were going for a Jasper the Ghost vibe.
As one of my Goverment Funds Recovery post-Covid I would hike fuel tax for the next few years.
A few billion a year, and an incentive to go for a zero emissons car.
Firstly, does Labour mostly mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? it seems to me the centre left/left can't make up its mind. The difference is not one of degree, it is a difference of kind. They are different animals altogether. I strongly support one but not the other. Many people think the same
Secondly, is equality/fairness about this country or about the world generally?
Thirdly, to increase equality of either sort (opportunity or outcome) those who have more (including most Labour members and all Labour politicians), everyone in a decent job, successful entrepreneurs etc will have to have relatively less as compared with those who currently have less (who must have more), either in terms of outcome or opportunity.
Do I see the Labour party as generally displaying that approach to life? No.
What does it spent on? Layers of contracting, each one nice and profitable.
Another business that was built on layers of contracting - each layer taking a profit - was the space launch industry.
It wasn't very surprising that a certain mad billionaire went into the tunnel business.....
There is a reason seats in the South like Chingford are swinging away from the Tories relative to the rest of the country - and a reason why seats in the North are swinging towards them - and it is not because the Green Belt is getting built on in Chingford.
Quite frankly if the Tories are standing in the way of people owning their own home in the local area not only will they eventually lose - they will deserve to too.
I still support the ruling and I'm glad that we're finally grasping the nettle of the gig economy but some people, especially in Labour, like to pretend that it's all downside all the time for the workers and the companies are all engaged in exploitation. I don't think that's a fair characterisation but if anyone points this out they get labelled as "Tory scum" etc... by your fellow travellers, Rochdale.
He wants the stats so he can say arrests are up and it's easy to do that by arresting Twitter morons rather than staking out properties in the suburbs on streets targeted for robberies.
The Spanish Inquisition predates the KKK by several hundred years (dunno if that's where they nicked it from), I believe the Portugese had their own version. The costume may ring a bell with Brazilians but with entirely different historical connotations.