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?
One interesting thing to see with the 2021 Census will be the change in home ownership rates since 2011.
If my theory that "it is housing, stupid" is right then we should see that Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Don Valley etc have higher rates of home ownership now than they did in 2011 which is what is driving and underpinning the change in voting patterns.
While the converse is it wouldn't surprise me to see that home ownership rates are falling in Chingford etc which is what is driving and underpinning the change in voting patterns.
If my theory is right then if these housing trends continue we should expect the voting trends to continue. Seats like Chingford will become Labour-leaning when votes are neutral while Bishop Auckland etc might even end up Tory-leaning when votes are neutral.
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.
There would be if it wasn't for vaccinations, which are already significantly higher than prior infections outside of London.
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.
Wasn't the Iberian hood one worn by penitents? Rather different connotations, if so.
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.
In spain you will often see religous parades where there are many that look like KKK people....gave me a surprise one year when was at a cafe in Vigo when they ambled past
Interesting interview on R4 news at lunchtime today with Cornish flower grower, leaving millions of daffs to rot because can't get labour from abroad, Brexit etc. Everything got discussed, including the legendary laziness of UK workers, except whether it is right for certain industries to be immune from paying a wage attractive enough to get UK workers to do it and thus make money by paying artificially low wages.
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.
The problem is if you build more houses in areas like East Ham or Barking they aren't generally priced at a level affordable to local people. There's no local electoral benefit to the Conservatives if they build homes no one locally can live in.
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
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.
Colchester is a classic example, too, of the libdem success story between 1990 and 2005. They had a local who worked and worked and worked and worked. It's crazy to think there is as much time between 1990 (and the formation of the LibDems) and 2005 (when they reached their peak seats) as between then and now.
Michael Meacher came close to winning Colchester for Labour in 1966.
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.
The problem is if you build more houses in areas like East Ham or Barking they aren't generally priced at a level affordable to local people. There's no local electoral benefit to the Conservatives if they build homes no one locally can live in.
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
There maybe scope for a lot of office blocks to be converted in the near future which might help bring housing costs down
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.
There would be if it wasn't for vaccinations, which are already significantly higher than prior infections outside of London.
The vaccination programme will have a dramatic impact on hospitalisation numbers, and, in particular deaths. But i don't think we've yet got to the stage where politicians are prepared to disregard rising case numbers if they aren't leading to serious adverse outcomes. And there are clearly a hell of a lot of people in the most likely "spreader" populations who haven't been vaccinated. And non priority age groups may not in general be in serious risk of death, but a hell of a lot of them are ending up in hospital and clogging up the NHS>
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
Two doses of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine are 98.9 per cent effective against being hospitalised with or dying from Covid-19, according to new figures from Israel.
And to think it was hoped gen 1 vaccines would manage to get 50% and that would have been deemed a huge success.
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.
There would be if it wasn't for vaccinations, which are already significantly higher than prior infections outside of London.
The vaccination programme will have a dramatic impact on hospitalisation numbers, and, in particular deaths. But i don't think we've yet got to the stage where politicians are prepared to disregard rising case numbers if they aren't leading to serious adverse outcomes. And there are clearly a hell of a lot of people in the most likely "spreader" populations who haven't been vaccinated. And non priority age groups may not in general be in serious risk of death, but a hell of a lot of them are ending up in hospital and clogging up the NHS>
Only about a third of English hospital admissions are under the age of 65:
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.
There would be if it wasn't for vaccinations, which are already significantly higher than prior infections outside of London.
The vaccination programme will have a dramatic impact on hospitalisation numbers, and, in particular deaths. But i don't think we've yet got to the stage where politicians are prepared to disregard rising case numbers if they aren't leading to serious adverse outcomes. And there are clearly a hell of a lot of people in the most likely "spreader" populations who haven't been vaccinated. And non priority age groups may not in general be in serious risk of death, but a hell of a lot of them are ending up in hospital and clogging up the NHS>
Only about a third of English hospital admissions are under the age of 65:
And most of the vulnerable among them will already be vaccinated.
I did say that the vaccination programme will have a big impact on hospitalisation numbers, so i probably should have left off the last sentence that you focussed on, as it obscured the point. Basically, if numbers start going up as we exit lockdown (not saying that they will, but IF - due to exposure to UK variant) are the politicians going to be prepared to face it down on the grounds that it is simply a "casedemic", and not a fundamental problem for public health?
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
Note the prevalence of the east side of England in that list. People obsess about the N/S divide, but the E/W split is possibly more important.
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.
In spain you will often see religous parades where there are many that look like KKK people....gave me a surprise one year when was at a cafe in Vigo when they ambled past
The original KKK didn't wear white bed sheets. That was a 20th Cent. invention.
This is what the contemporary reports had them looking like -
Interesting that Labours fundamental problem with small and medium-sized English towns was identified on this site as far back as 2009. The party has been ignoring the problem for 12 years, which is perhaps one of the reasons they havent won an election since then.
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
East Ham is bottom of the list, and yet the London Borough of Newham almost voted for Brexit. Difficult to explain.
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
Note the prevalence of the east side of England in that list. People obsess about the N/S divide, but the E/W split is possibly more important.
Interesting list. All the Boris vulnerables inside the M25, I think.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
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.
In spain you will often see religous parades where there are many that look like KKK people....gave me a surprise one year when was at a cafe in Vigo when they ambled past
The original KKK didn't wear white bed sheets. That was a 20th Cent. invention.
This is what the contemporary reports had them looking like -
It was DW Griffith in ‘Birth of a Nation’ who first dressed the KKK up to look like Spanish penitents. Their real world counterparts in the new Klan of the first half of the 20th Century copied what they had seen on screen.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Using what evidence? Did he let a capita goon into his house or have a long conversation with them?
Never engage with them...even if you are on the up and up...when they come, simply no thank you and close the door. They have basically no power, unless you a) incriminate yourself that you are doing something illegal or b) threaten them in some way.
You definitely don't get into a debate about only watching Netflix or catchup vs live tv.
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
Not very many of those, and all (based on my limited understanding of London) look like they should contain either a high proportion of rich people (Tory leaning due to asset defence) or Jewish people (Tory leaning because the Corbyn Left shat all over Labour's brand.) There would seem to be no drawbacks for Johnson in trying to keep what might crudely be described as the "left behind" element of his electoral coalition on side.
Interesting that Labours fundamental problem with small and medium-sized English towns was identified on this site as far back as 2009. The party has been ignoring the problem for 12 years, which is perhaps one of the reasons they havent won an election since then.
People trend to retreat into their comfort zones and echo chambers.
Which for Labour after 2010 became the big cities and university towns.
Remember EdM and his 'ordinary folk' of Dartmouth Park.
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.
The problem is if you build more houses in areas like East Ham or Barking they aren't generally priced at a level affordable to local people. There's no local electoral benefit to the Conservatives if they build homes no one locally can live in.
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
That's where policies like Help to Buy (that are only valid with owner occupiers) come in.
Under Osborne's reforms HTB aids first time buyers or those moving to upsize etc into new homes, while premium taxes on Stamp Duty are paid for by those buying second homes.
Combine these policies with housebuilding and home ownership rates can and do increase.
I'm surprised its taken a week for a paper to pick up the fact - I remember it from early in the week or even the week before and probably from this site as it's not the sort of thing my twitter feed would have seen.
You don't suddenly stop paying someone's pension unless they aren't around to need it.
Interesting that the authorities didn’t think to massage the figures.
Although apparently they did - just badly. I believe they collapsed in Q1 and Q2 of this year but jumped back to previous levels in Q3... and Wuhan City data not available
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
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.
There would be if it wasn't for vaccinations, which are already significantly higher than prior infections outside of London.
The vaccination programme will have a dramatic impact on hospitalisation numbers, and, in particular deaths. But i don't think we've yet got to the stage where politicians are prepared to disregard rising case numbers if they aren't leading to serious adverse outcomes. And there are clearly a hell of a lot of people in the most likely "spreader" populations who haven't been vaccinated. And non priority age groups may not in general be in serious risk of death, but a hell of a lot of them are ending up in hospital and clogging up the NHS>
Only about a third of English hospital admissions are under the age of 65:
And most of the vulnerable among them will already be vaccinated.
I did say that the vaccination programme will have a big impact on hospitalisation numbers, so i probably should have left off the last sentence that you focussed on, as it obscured the point. Basically, if numbers start going up as we exit lockdown (not saying that they will, but IF - due to exposure to UK variant) are the politicians going to be prepared to face it down on the grounds that it is simply a "casedemic", and not a fundamental problem for public health?
Schools would have to increase R significantly to counter the effect of vaccinations on lowering R.
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.
The problem is if you build more houses in areas like East Ham or Barking they aren't generally priced at a level affordable to local people. There's no local electoral benefit to the Conservatives if they build homes no one locally can live in.
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
That's where policies like Help to Buy (that are only valid with owner occupiers) come in.
Under Osborne's reforms HTB aids first time buyers or those moving to upsize etc into new homes, while premium taxes on Stamp Duty are paid for by those buying second homes.
Combine these policies with housebuilding and home ownership rates can and do increase.
Didn't HTB help out landlords as well? Or am I mixing it with the older scheme?
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.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
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.
Indeed, the Semana santa parades here in Spain would certainly shock the snowflake tendency in both the US and the UK:
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.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
Disappointing but a metric wholly within human control - unlike the virus. There have been warnings of supply problems until don’t think Johnson would have made the announcement he did last night if there was not some confidence they would be rectified.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Using what evidence? Did he let a capita goon into his house or have a long conversation with them?
Never engage with them...even if you are on the up and up...when they come, simply no thank you and close the door. They have basically no power, unless you a) incriminate yourself that you are doing something illegal or b) threaten them in some way.
You definitely don't get into a debate about only watching Netflix or catchup vs live tv.
Alternatively, tell them you’ve got a really bad case of Covid, and you are self-isolating. What are they going to do then?
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.
The problem is if you build more houses in areas like East Ham or Barking they aren't generally priced at a level affordable to local people. There's no local electoral benefit to the Conservatives if they build homes no one locally can live in.
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
That's where policies like Help to Buy (that are only valid with owner occupiers) come in.
Under Osborne's reforms HTB aids first time buyers or those moving to upsize etc into new homes, while premium taxes on Stamp Duty are paid for by those buying second homes.
Combine these policies with housebuilding and home ownership rates can and do increase.
Didn't HTB help out landlords as well? Or am I mixing it with the older scheme?
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Few things anger me, but the continued attack from BBC Licensing on non-users is one that does. I haven't had a TV since 2009 because I never watch it. One has to confirm every two years that one still doesn't watch TV. But the website that enables you to do that requires you to pick the option through which you do access moving pictures. So I can't answer that question because there isn't a NOTA choice.
In order to stop them pestering me I have to write a snail mail, and even then they often don't seem to read it & act on it.
I end up ignoring their letters for years, as the letters get more & more legalised, but they've never either paid me a visit or actually gone as far as prosecution.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Using what evidence? Did he let a capita goon into his house or have a long conversation with them?
Never engage with them...even if you are on the up and up...when they come, simply no thank you and close the door. They have basically no power, unless you a) incriminate yourself that you are doing something illegal or b) threaten them in some way.
You definitely don't get into a debate about only watching Netflix or catchup vs live tv.
Alternatively, tell them you’ve got a really bad case of Covid, and you are self-isolating. What are they going to do then?
AFAIK, they haven't really been doing visits for the past year for exactly this reason and fairly certain not entering people's homes. That is why i am confused how a posters son is getting prosecuted, did he have a long conversation with them on his doorstep and incriminate himself?
There are no magically detector vans or high tech surveillance...all prosecutions come from people incriminating themselves or in very rare cases threatening the capita staff and that being used aa grounds for the police to be involved.
Capita officials are basically powerless. They can't force you to talk to them, peer through your windows nor enter your home. And the number of warrants given out every year relating to tv licence cases is tiny and isn't on the sole grounds of Mr Smith said no thank you when they visited.
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
Note the prevalence of the east side of England in that list. People obsess about the N/S divide, but the E/W split is possibly more important.
Talk of both of these divides is really about the same thing: the interplay between age, income and ethnicity. Broadly speaking, you'd expect young, benefit dependent, middle income family and non-white voters to lean towards Labour; old, working poor, rich and white voters to lean towards the Tories. To varying degrees, to be sure - "whiteness" per se should be a relatively weak predictor, for example, and one would expect various different BAME groups to trend in very different ways - but a model that could incorporate all of these factors might prove to be quite a useful predictive tool, in England at any rate.
Interesting interview on R4 news at lunchtime today with Cornish flower grower, leaving millions of daffs to rot because can't get labour from abroad, Brexit etc. Everything got discussed, including the legendary laziness of UK workers, except whether it is right for certain industries to be immune from paying a wage attractive enough to get UK workers to do it and thus make money by paying artificially low wages.
I can buy daffodils for 80p to £1. It would be much better to pay twice that and pay a proper wage to someone.
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.
Yes. Putney is interesting.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches. The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%. Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are: Harrow East (30) City and Westminster (35) Hendon (40) Chelsea and Fulham (41) Finchley (41) Wimbledon (42) Chipping Barnet (51)
That list looks darned similar to my UKIP targets at the 2015 GE list!
(and the "personality" part of your other recent post, similar to my "Leader personality posts")
So I like your thinking on both counts!
IPSOS-MORI's leader image ratings are something you might find interesting Ian. They go back to 1979
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.
Indeed, the Semana santa parades here in Spain would certainly shock the snowflake tendency in both the US and the UK:
Nobody expects the Spanish... er, Cíclopes Exaltados?
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.
The problem is if you build more houses in areas like East Ham or Barking they aren't generally priced at a level affordable to local people. There's no local electoral benefit to the Conservatives if they build homes no one locally can live in.
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
That's where policies like Help to Buy (that are only valid with owner occupiers) come in.
Under Osborne's reforms HTB aids first time buyers or those moving to upsize etc into new homes, while premium taxes on Stamp Duty are paid for by those buying second homes.
Combine these policies with housebuilding and home ownership rates can and do increase.
Didn't HTB help out landlords as well? Or am I mixing it with the older scheme?
No HTB excluded landlords.
Osborne's reforms were very smart. For owner occupiers HTB was available (landlords excluded), while on Stamp Duty there was a landlord surcharge. So clearly incentivising owner occupier over landlords.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Few things anger me, but the continued attack from BBC Licensing on non-users is one that does. I haven't had a TV since 2009 because I never watch it. One has to confirm every two years that one still doesn't watch TV. But the website that enables you to do that requires you to pick the option through which you do access moving pictures. So I can't answer that question because there isn't a NOTA choice.
In order to stop them pestering me I have to write a snail mail, and even then they often don't seem to read it & act on it.
I end up ignoring their letters for years, as the letters get more & more legalised, but they've never either paid me a visit or actually gone as far as prosecution.
You don't have to inform / confirm anything with them. That is a faleshood. There is no legal requirement to engage at all with them, you can just stop paying.
You can choose to and in theory they can decide that for the next 2 years they will mark you down as not needing one. But if you are just saying i don't watch live.tv, they will still pester you.
You only get a pass if the reason is one of the weird legal loopholes related to thinks like shared properties that have 2 addresses, but actually no internal lock doors and the other address has a licence e.g. sometimes peope who build a granny flat for their parents.
Disappointing but a metric wholly within human control - unlike the virus. There have been warnings of supply problems until don’t think Johnson would have made the announcement he did last night if there was not some confidence they would be rectified.
As I've been saying all week I doubt it's supply issues so much as building up a stockpile of Pfizer doses for second jabs as an insurance policy in case of sudden supply issues from Pfizer. Given that we've disregarded the manufacturer recommendation of holding back 50% of supplied doses we can't rely on them to adjust to our JiT supply policy for second doses meaning this week and next week I think around 1.5m Pfizer doses will be being held back to ensure the NHS always has enough doses to supply for second jabs. It's a bit like the US petroleum reserve policy, in times when Pfizer come up short we can release some of the reserve and rebuild it when the supply resumes.
Ideally we won't need to do this with AZ as we can redirect the whole supply for second doses and use Moderna and Novavax for first doses starting in April.
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.
In 1992 there was only 1 net Labour loss to the Tories - Aberdeen South. The other losses were simply failing to hang on to by-election gains - Vale of Glamorgan - Mid- Staffordshire - Monmouth - Langbaurgh.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Few things anger me, but the continued attack from BBC Licensing on non-users is one that does. I haven't had a TV since 2009 because I never watch it. One has to confirm every two years that one still doesn't watch TV. But the website that enables you to do that requires you to pick the option through which you do access moving pictures. So I can't answer that question because there isn't a NOTA choice.
In order to stop them pestering me I have to write a snail mail, and even then they often don't seem to read it & act on it.
I end up ignoring their letters for years, as the letters get more & more legalised, but they've never either paid me a visit or actually gone as far as prosecution.
You don't have to inform / confirm anything with them. That is a faleshood.
I know, but I'd have no objection to going through the online exercise every few years merely to stop the junk mail. That's the reason why I eventually wrote a letter, to stop the junk mail.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Given todays promise, the government must be confident large increased supply is incoming.
Indeed. These are really poor numbers on the face of it but they are clearly holding back doses to start second dosing tomorrow. I think we should expect a ramping up next week.
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.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
Yes, you may very well be right, but what is to be done about the massive lack of infrastructure to support this change? Nobody seems to be addressing this. Now, I don't own a car so it doesn't bother me, but what are other flat dwellers going to end up doing - dangling an electric flex out the window and down to ground level to plug in their cars? Likewise with people who park out on the street outside their houses - are pedestrians going to be faced with a trip hazard cable (covered with a bit of smelly old carpet, or more likely not) every ten metres along the pavement?
Alternatively, if everyone is to be expected to charge their cars outside the home, like a visit to the petrol station, then how is recharging to be done quickly enough to make it practical (and can the tens of thousands of necessary stations be constructed in time?)
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Using what evidence? Did he let a capita goon into his house or have a long conversation with them?
Never engage with them...even if you are on the up and up...when they come, simply no thank you and close the door. They have basically no power, unless you a) incriminate yourself that you are doing something illegal or b) threaten them in some way.
You definitely don't get into a debate about only watching Netflix or catchup vs live tv.
I think he may have talked to someone - but no one was allowed in - his tv's aren't even connected to an Ariel - its all App based
I will have to ask him for full details but I pointed him towards citizens advice and an anti tv license pressure group
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.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
However, I am still sceptical. Governments didn't need to legislate to ban photographic film. Digital cameras simply replaced it by being better in almost every respect.
I'm not sure how much we can read into the luxury car market. I would like to know how many households own only electric vehicles?
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Entirely off topic, the people in the flat above me are smokers. When they light up the smell permeates down to me.
Many months ago they switched to vaping and I found the smell of that much more obtrusive. Today, they've reverted to actual tobacco, and it took me a while to work out what that lovely odour was!
Sorry if it's worse for their health, but as a passive recipient of odours it's a good swap.
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.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
Yes, you may very well be right, but what is to be done about the massive lack of infrastructure to support this change? Nobody seems to be addressing this. Now, I don't own a car so it doesn't bother me, but what are other flat dwellers going to end up doing - dangling an electric flex out the window and down to ground level to plug in their cars? Likewise with people who park out on the street outside their houses - are pedestrians going to be faced with a trip hazard cable (covered with a bit of smelly old carpet, or more likely not) every ten metres along the pavement?
Alternatively, if everyone is to be expected to charge their cars outside the home, like a visit to the petrol station, then how is recharging to be done quickly enough to make it practical (and can the tens of thousands of necessary stations be constructed in time?)
They are addressing this - major investments in fast charging stations to replace petrol stations.
In addition, there is a program to build chargers (for overnight trickle charging) into lamp posts. At the same time the lamp posts are converted to LED - which drops the amount of power required for the lighting. Which leaves the capability for charging...
Entirely off topic, the people in the flat above me are smokers. When they light up the smell permeates down to me.
Many months ago they switched to vaping and I found the smell of that much more obtrusive. Today, they've reverted to actual tobacco, and it took me a while to work out what that lovely odour was!
Sorry if it's worse for their health, but as a passive recipient of odours it's a good swap.
I stopped going to gigs shortly after the smoking ban. The smell of tobacco really managed to hide the smell of drunken farts and BO.
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
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.
Thanks. I was unaware of the Portuguese Inquisition. Although, from the images I can find, they did not seem to wear the white costume. And they seem to have been (as one would expect from the Portuguese) somewhat more lenient than their Spanish counterparts, with 94% of those found guilty given penance, and half of the remainder executed in effigy, whatever that means.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Farcical to expect Amazon viewers to own a TV licence.
The sooner the licence is history the better. Its only a matter of time now, this reform is inevitable and the later it happens the worse it will be for the BBC.
They face a choice: Get ahead of the curve now and put themselves on a sustainable footing, or wait until generations of voters who can't be bothered with the Beeb decide to axe the licence without caring what happens to the BBC.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there. If you only watch the likes of Bosch or Man in the High Castle you don't.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
And this is why the tv licence needs to go....it is totally unenforceable now. Nobody would ever know if you watch live footy on amazon or the NFL on twitch, or even iPlayer.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Few things anger me, but the continued attack from BBC Licensing on non-users is one that does. I haven't had a TV since 2009 because I never watch it. One has to confirm every two years that one still doesn't watch TV. But the website that enables you to do that requires you to pick the option through which you do access moving pictures. So I can't answer that question because there isn't a NOTA choice.
In order to stop them pestering me I have to write a snail mail, and even then they often don't seem to read it & act on it.
I end up ignoring their letters for years, as the letters get more & more legalised, but they've never either paid me a visit or actually gone as far as prosecution.
You don't have to inform / confirm anything with them. That is a faleshood.
I know, but I'd have no objection to going through the online exercise every few years merely to stop the junk mail. That's the reason why I eventually wrote a letter, to stop the junk mail.
In the US, someone would have sued the BBC for emotional distress for that behaviour.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. Just pointing out that simply saying "i only watch Amazon" isn't actually a defence.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. Just pointing out that simply saying "i only watch Amazon" isn't actually a defence.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
Its why you don't debate with tv licencing about this.
As for finding out, a) tv licencing have no power to ask your ISP about your usage, b) you can just use a VPN and c) IP address alone has been defeated plenty of times in court if it the sole evidence of an alleged activity...too easy to claim somebody piggybacked your wifi / amazon account.
Just using a VPN, you basically then talking GCHQ to specifically be targetting you in order to establish your online usage.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. Just pointing out that simply saying "i only watch Amazon" isn't actually a defence.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
Hang on, so theoretically you need a tv licence for watching live pictures on an internet service that has nothing whatever to do with the BBC? That’s massive overreach if it’s correct.
Interesting interview on R4 news at lunchtime today with Cornish flower grower, leaving millions of daffs to rot because can't get labour from abroad, Brexit etc. Everything got discussed, including the legendary laziness of UK workers, except whether it is right for certain industries to be immune from paying a wage attractive enough to get UK workers to do it and thus make money by paying artificially low wages.
I can buy daffodils for 80p to £1. It would be much better to pay twice that and pay a proper wage to someone.
Now, you say that but, even if you mean it, I bet most people wouldn't. We are back to the old tax rises to fund better public services issue: paying more money so that we can have nicer schools and hospitals is a really good idea, just so long as the money is paid by other people.
The issue we have is that the consumer now expects cheap, partly because she or he takes cheap for granted (your upper middle class, habitual M&S and Waitrose shopper not so much, but they are a privileged minority,) but also because they're often in crap jobs and servicing huge rents or mortgages, so cannot afford anything other than cheap. So, supermarkets have to keep their prices low, which means that they bleed their suppliers white, which means that the suppliers are incentivized to pay their workers as little as they can possibly get away with. Minimum wage jobs, in many cases underpinned by zero hours contracts. That's the context in which your flower grower and his dirt cheap daffs has to be understood.
Migrant workers can be put up in rubbish accommodation and paid shit wages because when they go back home the money they earn is magically worth an awful lot more. They can keep a family on it and think about buying a house. British workers don't have that option: the money doesn't even cover the bills and has to be topped up with stingy benefits, and they can't just run off to Lithuania at the end of the season to square the financial circle. They're stuck here doing low wage work in a high cost economy, and there are no easy solutions to this problem.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. Just pointing out that simply saying "i only watch Amazon" isn't actually a defence.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
Hang on, so theoretically you need a tv licence for watching live pictures on an internet service that has nothing whatever to do with the BBC? That’s massive overreach if it’s correct.
It is actually a grey area...live youtube or twitch streams from randoms no....live streams of broadcast channels, yes e.g. technically watching sky news on YouTube requires one or watching itv 1 live via itv hub does.
Live streams of non broadcast channels e.g. the footy on amazon, I believe it is actually unclear, because it isnt a regular broadcast channel in the traditional sense.
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. Just pointing out that simply saying "i only watch Amazon" isn't actually a defence.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
Hang on, so theoretically you need a tv licence for watching live pictures on an internet service that has nothing whatever to do with the BBC? That’s massive overreach if it’s correct.
It is actually a grey area...live youtube or twitch streams from randoms no....live streams of broadcast channels, yes e.g. technically watching sky news on YouTube requires one. Live streams of non broadcast channels e.g. the footy on amazon, I believe it is actually unclear, because it isnt a regular broadcast channel in the traditional sense.
Its why all the letters etc use words like "may".
The thing is, I bet the revenues would be the same if they just said “you must pay if you watch the BBC” because in the real world most people will, if only because it’s usually preset to channel 1 and the news will be on or something. It’s not worth the argument you never do. Trying to overreach only makes people like me inclined to support actions to put them back in their box.
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."
My business partner's son was for a long while an zero hours Amazon contractor driver. The hours, the pay, the constantly diminishing terms and conditions reminded me of the working practices of a Victorian Mill Owner.
The only way I can see Labour avoiding a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' situation here, is to look at some kind of a Finnish style universal basic income. This leads to notion of the 'something for nothing' society, so in exchange, non-productive recipients could be commissioned to carry out those civic duties that are no longer afforded by the state or local 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.
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 agree, the green belt around Liverpool, which has lost half its population in the past seventy years, is totally pointless. It's the one around London which really does the damage.
oh - apparently the bbc are taking action against my son for not having a tv license - he told them he doesn't watch terrestrial tv (only Netflix and Amazon and nothing live) but they seem to want to proceed ....
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
That is the sort of misleading BS that scares people into thinking any use of Amazon Prime requires a tv licence...it doesn't... its only if you choose to say access the live footy on there.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. Just pointing out that simply saying "i only watch Amazon" isn't actually a defence.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
Hang on, so theoretically you need a tv licence for watching live pictures on an internet service that has nothing whatever to do with the BBC? That’s massive overreach if it’s correct.
It is actually a grey area...live youtube or twitch streams from randoms no....live streams of broadcast channels, yes e.g. technically watching sky news on YouTube requires one. Live streams of non broadcast channels e.g. the footy on amazon, I believe it is actually unclear, because it isnt a regular broadcast channel in the traditional sense.
Its why all the letters etc use words like "may".
The thing is, I bet the revenues would be the same if they just said “you must pay if you watch the BBC” because in the real world most people will, if only because it’s usually preset to channel 1 and the news will be on or something. It’s not worth the argument you never do. Trying to overreach only makes people like me inclined to support actions to put them back in their box.
The real problem is they know if somebody doesn't want to pay, these days they can get away with it without being a rocket scientist. The only people they catch are either the unware or people who incriminate themselves.
So instead they are really going after people who are law abiding but were thinking if they really need the BBC / live tv...and by making misleading statements they are getting them to pay for the just in case factor, because we might get a £1000* fine if little Johnny watches some stream on YouTube.
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
Given todays promise, the government must be confident large increased supply is incoming.
When do they switch away from a focus on GP surgeries to large scale mass vaccination centres?
One would assume that the current hybrid approach will continue. Firstly, whilst people of working age are more likely to have their own transport, a lot of people who don't or who live in more remote areas are going to find reaching a central hub problematic and/or expensive. Secondly, much of the rollout of the first doses to younger recipients is going to be taking place at the same time as second doses to the olds in any event.
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
And that's just Blair . . .
Well, I wasn’t discriminating to that extent.
(In fairness, I’ve heard - and called - Demon Eyes many things, but never yet a racist.)
People driving lorries into the UK from France will no longer be required to have a negative coronavirus test before they are allowed to re-enter France, if they've been in the UK for less than 48 hours, the UK transport secretary says.
Given todays promise, the government must be confident large increased supply is incoming.
When do they switch away from a focus on GP surgeries to large scale mass vaccination centres?
One would assume that the current hybrid approach will continue. Firstly, whilst people of working age are more likely to have their own transport, a lot of people who don't or who live in more remote areas are going to find reaching a central hub problematic and/or expensive. Secondly, much of the rollout of the first doses to younger recipients is going to be taking place at the same time as second doses to the olds in any event.
My 18 year old son has his vaccination next Saturday at Gp's
that's 3 out of 4 sons who will have had the jab - myself and wife still waiting
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
And that's just Blair . . .
Well, I wasn’t discriminating to that extent.
(In fairness, I’ve heard - and called - Demon Eyes many things, but never yet a racist.)
You clearly never had to sit through any Stop the War Coalition speeches....
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
And that's just Blair . . .
Well, I wasn’t discriminating to that extent.
(In fairness, I’ve heard - and called - Demon Eyes many things, but never yet a racist.)
You may not have but others have.
There were many who said he was a racist for regularly wanting to go to war with Muslims.
(I don't buy that personally, nor do I personally think he's a war criminal, but thought it was an amusing response).
Odd flurry of continuity remainerism in this thread. Very quaint - did they just play Ode to joy on Radio 3?
Former Remainers should still be allowed to whinge and carp about Brexit, in much the same way Bill Cash and Peter Bone were allowed to bang on about the European adventure 24/7 since 1973.
We have left, and it is unlikely we will rejoin anytime soon, we are perfectly at liberty however to complain about the folly of the enterprise. It's supposed to be a free country after all.
A friend of mine is exceedingly peeved. She is a nurse and survived the whole Covid episode without getting it, having been tested relentlessly. About 6 weeks ago she was vaccinated. And now she has just tested positive. She is to get another test and so far she has no symptoms other than possibly a sore throat, but wonders whether that is just imagined. She is exceedingly annoyed.
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.
Except that was not really my point. The point was more high levels of home ownership, especially if that ownership is only with a mortgage rather than outright as it will be for the young and non retired, only really benefits the Tories against a leftwing Labour leader like Corbyn who the new home owners fear will threaten the value of their assets. As I pointed out Blair won those who owned their properties with a mortgage comfortably from 1997 to 2005 and Starmer is also much less likely to be feared by homeowners than Corbyn was.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
Labour are the prime opposition not the LDs.
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
Depends on the seat, in Guildford the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories.
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
So it’s all good then? We would end up with a government that wasn’t led by a liar, a racist or a war criminal.
And that's just Blair . . .
Well, I wasn’t discriminating to that extent.
(In fairness, I’ve heard - and called - Demon Eyes many things, but never yet a racist.)
You may not have but others have.
There were many who said he was a racist for regularly wanting to go to war with Muslims.
(I don't buy that personally, nor do I personally think he's a war criminal, but thought it was an amusing response).
Both Blair and Johnson make a comfortable two out of three on Ydoethur's analysis. Arguably so does Corbyn if having friends who take down Pan Am flights and Birmingham pubs counts as a war crime.
A friend of mine is exceedingly peeved. She is a nurse and survived the whole Covid episode without getting it, having been tested relentlessly. About 6 weeks ago she was vaccinated. And now she has just tested positive. She is to get another test and so far she has no symptoms other than possibly a sore throat, but wonders whether that is just imagined. She is exceedingly annoyed.
On the plus side, 6 weeks post jab, it may well be exactly why she only has a sore throat.
We know none of these vaccines, 1 or 2 dose give 100% invincibility shield. However, if it means all we get is a sore throat and feel crappy for a week, that is a huge win.
A friend of mine is exceedingly peeved. She is a nurse and survived the whole Covid episode without getting it, having been tested relentlessly. About 6 weeks ago she was vaccinated. And now she has just tested positive. She is to get another test and so far she has no symptoms other than possibly a sore throat, but wonders whether that is just imagined. She is exceedingly annoyed.
She should consider that the vaccination was well timed - in the cases where they doesn't prevent infection, the vaccines all have an excellent record of preventing serious illness.
Comments
If my theory that "it is housing, stupid" is right then we should see that Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Don Valley etc have higher rates of home ownership now than they did in 2011 which is what is driving and underpinning the change in voting patterns.
While the converse is it wouldn't surprise me to see that home ownership rates are falling in Chingford etc which is what is driving and underpinning the change in voting patterns.
If my theory is right then if these housing trends continue we should expect the voting trends to continue. Seats like Chingford will become Labour-leaning when votes are neutral while Bishop Auckland etc might even end up Tory-leaning when votes are neutral.
https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2021/02/19/1613725900577_AZ_FIRMATO_REPORT.pdf
Macron? what say you?
If the new homes go to investors who then rent them out there's no political benefit at all.
The housing issue isn't just about construction but responding to the actual demand and the economics of that demand.
There is no legal action but it is morally reprehensible to criticise her for undertaking the legal action as is her right.
I've been getting some of my ideas from Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford. Rawnsley says "Theirs is a highly acute and insightful analysis, making telling use of extensive research, which induces the reader to think afresh about the political landscape we now find ourselves in and how we arrived here".
That is where I got my concept of the "Identity conservative" who is a white non-graduate, who used to be in a majority in England but is now threatened.
For every English constituency, I've taken % white and % non-graduate and multiplied them to get a crude measure of the prevalence of the "Identity conservative" (IC) each constituency/
Top is Clackton at 92% IC
Bottom is East Ham at 18% IC.
The top ICs include many Lab to Con switches.
The bottom ICs are mainly Labour. Putney comes in at the 55th lowest IC with an IC of 42%.
Conservatives seats with low ICs which I would argue are vulnerable to Johnson's IC positioning are:
Harrow East (30)
City and Westminster (35)
Hendon (40)
Chelsea and Fulham (41)
Finchley (41)
Wimbledon (42)
Chipping Barnet (51)
And to think it was hoped gen 1 vaccines would manage to get 50% and that would have been deemed a huge success.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England
And most of the vulnerable among them will already be vaccinated.
This is what the contemporary reports had them looking like -
Thinking about it -None of my sons watch terrestrial tv - not one of the 4.
Never engage with them...even if you are on the up and up...when they come, simply no thank you and close the door. They have basically no power, unless you a) incriminate yourself that you are doing something illegal or b) threaten them in some way.
You definitely don't get into a debate about only watching Netflix or catchup vs live tv.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1363486957205094403?s=20
Which for Labour after 2010 became the big cities and university towns.
Remember EdM and his 'ordinary folk' of Dartmouth Park.
Under Osborne's reforms HTB aids first time buyers or those moving to upsize etc into new homes, while premium taxes on Stamp Duty are paid for by those buying second homes.
Combine these policies with housebuilding and home ownership rates can and do increase.
On the otherhand owner occupiers who are seeing development all over the countryside and fields around them and are already voting LD locally in opposition to that may vote LD nationally too if there is no longer a Labour leader they fear as they did Corbyn. Guildford is a classic case in point, it is a Tory seat, has a LD led council now and had a LD MP from 2001-2005
The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
In order to stop them pestering me I have to write a snail mail, and even then they often don't seem to read it & act on it.
I end up ignoring their letters for years, as the letters get more & more legalised, but they've never either paid me a visit or actually gone as far as prosecution.
There are no magically detector vans or high tech surveillance...all prosecutions come from people incriminating themselves or in very rare cases threatening the capita staff and that being used aa grounds for the police to be involved.
Capita officials are basically powerless. They can't force you to talk to them, peer through your windows nor enter your home. And the number of warrants given out every year relating to tv licence cases is tiny and isn't on the sole grounds of Mr Smith said no thank you when they visited.
(and the "personality" part of your other recent post, similar to my "Leader personality posts")
So I like your thinking on both counts!
IPSOS-MORI's leader image ratings are something you might find interesting Ian. They go back to 1979
Osborne's reforms were very smart. For owner occupiers HTB was available (landlords excluded), while on Stamp Duty there was a landlord surcharge. So clearly incentivising owner occupier over landlords.
You can choose to and in theory they can decide that for the next 2 years they will mark you down as not needing one. But if you are just saying i don't watch live.tv, they will still pester you.
You only get a pass if the reason is one of the weird legal loopholes related to thinks like shared properties that have 2 addresses, but actually no internal lock doors and the other address has a licence e.g. sometimes peope who build a granny flat for their parents.
Ideally we won't need to do this with AZ as we can redirect the whole supply for second doses and use Moderna and Novavax for first doses starting in April.
Alternatively, if everyone is to be expected to charge their cars outside the home, like a visit to the petrol station, then how is recharging to be done quickly enough to make it practical (and can the tens of thousands of necessary stations be constructed in time?)
I will have to ask him for full details but I pointed him towards citizens advice and an anti tv license pressure group
However, I am still sceptical. Governments didn't need to legislate to ban photographic film. Digital cameras simply replaced it by being better in almost every respect.
I'm not sure how much we can read into the luxury car market. I would like to know how many households own only electric vehicles?
Sometimes Labour will win, that's inevitable. But if its only Tory-friendly leaders like Blair then that's not bad. Starmer is no Blair.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/media-centre/news/view.app?id=1369783598662#:~:text=Subscribers to Amazon's Prime Video,offered by the entertainment platform.&text=If you watch or record,covered by a TV Licence.
Many months ago they switched to vaping and I found the smell of that much more obtrusive. Today, they've reverted to actual tobacco, and it took me a while to work out what that lovely odour was!
Sorry if it's worse for their health, but as a passive recipient of odours it's a good swap.
In addition, there is a program to build chargers (for overnight trickle charging) into lamp posts. At the same time the lamp posts are converted to LED - which drops the amount of power required for the lighting. Which leaves the capability for charging...
There is a lot of stuff going on in the background - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-51315970
If the LDs gain more seats from the Tories in the Home Counties those LD MPs will be voting to make Starmer PM, not Boris, this is not 2010.
Yes that would not be as bad as a Corbyn premiership but it is still a Tory defeat and Starmer while no Corbyn is as you say no Blair either
The sooner the licence is history the better. Its only a matter of time now, this reform is inevitable and the later it happens the worse it will be for the BBC.
They face a choice: Get ahead of the curve now and put themselves on a sustainable footing, or wait until generations of voters who can't be bothered with the Beeb decide to axe the licence without caring what happens to the BBC.
And in the real world, tv licencing can never know if you did.
And this is why the tv licence needs to go....it is totally unenforceable now. Nobody would ever know if you watch live footy on amazon or the NFL on twitch, or even iPlayer.
It's not technically true that it isn't possible to find out if an Amazon user has watched live tv, i think? Whether they've got the power to find out is another matter.
As for finding out, a) tv licencing have no power to ask your ISP about your usage, b) you can just use a VPN and c) IP address alone has been defeated plenty of times in court if it the sole evidence of an alleged activity...too easy to claim somebody piggybacked your wifi / amazon account.
Just using a VPN, you basically then talking GCHQ to specifically be targetting you in order to establish your online usage.
The issue we have is that the consumer now expects cheap, partly because she or he takes cheap for granted (your upper middle class, habitual M&S and Waitrose shopper not so much, but they are a privileged minority,) but also because they're often in crap jobs and servicing huge rents or mortgages, so cannot afford anything other than cheap. So, supermarkets have to keep their prices low, which means that they bleed their suppliers white, which means that the suppliers are incentivized to pay their workers as little as they can possibly get away with. Minimum wage jobs, in many cases underpinned by zero hours contracts. That's the context in which your flower grower and his dirt cheap daffs has to be understood.
Migrant workers can be put up in rubbish accommodation and paid shit wages because when they go back home the money they earn is magically worth an awful lot more. They can keep a family on it and think about buying a house. British workers don't have that option: the money doesn't even cover the bills and has to be topped up with stingy benefits, and they can't just run off to Lithuania at the end of the season to square the financial circle. They're stuck here doing low wage work in a high cost economy, and there are no easy solutions to this problem.
Live streams of non broadcast channels e.g. the footy on amazon, I believe it is actually unclear, because it isnt a regular broadcast channel in the traditional sense.
Its why all the letters etc use words like "may".
The only way I can see Labour avoiding a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' situation here, is to look at some kind of a Finnish style universal basic income. This leads to notion of the 'something for nothing' society, so in exchange, non-productive recipients could be commissioned to carry out those civic duties that are no longer afforded by the state or local authorities.
So instead they are really going after people who are law abiding but were thinking if they really need the BBC / live tv...and by making misleading statements they are getting them to pay for the just in case factor, because we might get a £1000* fine if little Johnny watches some stream on YouTube.
* And the average fine is actually about £150...
(In fairness, I’ve heard - and called - Demon Eyes many things, but never yet a racist.)
that's 3 out of 4 sons who will have had the jab - myself and wife still waiting
There were many who said he was a racist for regularly wanting to go to war with Muslims.
(I don't buy that personally, nor do I personally think he's a war criminal, but thought it was an amusing response).
We have left, and it is unlikely we will rejoin anytime soon, we are perfectly at liberty however to complain about the folly of the enterprise. It's supposed to be a free country after all.
We know none of these vaccines, 1 or 2 dose give 100% invincibility shield. However, if it means all we get is a sore throat and feel crappy for a week, that is a huge win.