It's great that after warning about this for years, the mainstream has finally conceded that the Tory economic programme was a complete and utter disaster.
The difference is that austerity was necessary in 2010 because Gordon Brown had blown all the money and was running a structural deficit.
Prior to the pandemic the 2018/19 deficit was considerably lower than the 2007/08 deficit, so the structural deficit coming out now should be much lower too.
The Tories fixed the roof that Brown trashed.
Why don't you watch the clip. The economist there said austerity was a disaster.
It was not necessary. It was never necessary. It did not work.
Austerity was not a disaster and it did work.
It was necessary, we had no choice, its the necessary result of Brown pissing away so much money.
And its worth noting that from 2010-2019 pre-pandemic as well as the Tories closing away Brown's structural deficit they inherited, Britain actually grew faster not slower than our EU neighbours. Despite Tories "flatlining" growth according to spin from lefties, despite "Tory austerity", despite the 2016 Brexit vote, despite the uncertainty supposedly associated with Brexit suppressing growth.
Despite all that, actually Britain was faster growing over the entire Tory decade.
Austerity is the reason the Tories won the Red Wall seats (labour was blamed for the cuts) and it's why Teesside is now Blue but Wearside and south Tyneside is still Labour
Now locally the council is Tory, our MP is Tory and the government is Tory. If Sunak imposes austerity the Tories will take all the blame
The opposite, Labour held the Red Wall in 2015 and 2017 when Cameron and Osborne and May and Hammond were pursuing austerity, the Tories only won it in 2019 when Boris was promising cake for all as well as to get Brexit done
Hi there! Have you given a groveling apology for your Rashford tweet yet, à la Elphicke?
I also see most of the comments in that Mail article support Elphicke and said she did not need to apologise.
All I said was I will accept Rashford's penalty taking ability may not have been affected by his campaigning which is as far as I will go
Maybe if you had concentrated on your day job, you would have actually won that seat on EFDC back in May!
I won the town council seat and in the EFDC seat got the highest Tory voteshare in a LD held seat for 5 years
You still got trounced by the LD candidate!
A somewhat unkind and unsporting comment Sunil.
But surely not as unkind or unsporting as HYUFD's comment about Rashford?
Pro tip HYUFD: If you want to win next time try and think what you can do to win over voters from the LDs.
Trying to attract 47% of Tory voters to vote for you and telling everyone else not to vote for you won't win.
Top issue with them is opposing development on the green belt, something you adamantly support, had I gone down your route I would have seen a swing to the LDs not the other way in May
"LDs win, it all went wrong then when HYUFD spent all his time pontificating on PB rather than campaigning in his Ward!"
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
Given 47% of English voters voted Tory a bit rude of English players to refuse to meet the Tory PM about half of the voters of the country they are supposed to represent on the football pitch voted for
It’s not true is it, it’s sqwakbox nonsense with zero quotes. No way the best players would refuse to meet the PM. I expect Kane, Sterling, Southgate and of course Rashford have met Boris before. In the event England won the thing he’d fill Downing Street with volunteers, youth workers, nurses and surviving 66’ heroes to ensure the event couldn’t be weaponised by the far left.
Well he would say that wouldn't he? Just as the drink industry is kept afloat by alcoholics and betting by gambling addicts, so Ingerland football support is built on a bedrock of 17 pints of faaaacking lager monkey grunters. Ingerland would prefer not to admit this.
And as others have pointed out he has no way of knowing unless GCHQ has dropped everything else, including surveilling Russia and China, and rushed to his aid.
It is definitely true there were bots fanning the flames. I saw it on twitter some very dodgy accounts with the classic russian tactic...they were posting video such as two black guys beating up an italian fan, while other dodgy accounts posting a white guy getting into it with a black guy....then an italian fan starting on an england fan.
I was however rather surprised however when they suddenly said 70% came from abroad....
Not intended at all as patronising advice for Mr Urquhart. But I've quoted him and written it now and CBA. People need to stop losing their shit over stuff they've seen Online full stop. It isn't great for anyone's mental health, and a lot of it is turns out to be faked. This applies to Left and Right equally. Start with the question "What reaction is this intending to provoke in me?" Then ask "Who benefits if I respond in that way?" Not you, I guarantee.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
It seems hardly anyone wants to talk about the fact that most of the social media comments came from abroad, probably generated by bots. Why not? It ought to be the main news of the day IMO.
Ever heard of a VPN?
You do realise the authorities can track down people who use VPNs right? It might be fine to get away with if you’re just using a dodgy foreign TV stream but if you’ve actually committed a serious crime of note they can work out if you’re in the UK or not.
It isn’t surprising to anyone most of these offences take place outside the UK - usually gambling is involved and those abroad don’t expect repercussions because those they are sending hate to are thousands of miles away (see the Neil Maupay case).
They can't very easily. They can ask the VPN company to provide logs but if they don't keep logs - as many don't - they can't be tracked down. One of the key selling points is anonymity.
And several VPNs employ their own protocols now which are essentially uncrackable - it's one of the reasons they want to ban encryption.
Hmm yes and no.....there are a number of ways people can and have been tracked down even with no log VPNs, but it is limited to things like terrorism, via GCHQ, or really top tier pirate community groups.
Its too time consuming and resource heavy to do to track down somebody streaming the odd episode of dragon and tits.
Yeah, you’ve got to be on a government’s “Top 10 Wanted” list, for even basic security practices to be undone sufficiently to be able to identify you.
If you’re Julian Assange, or just hacked an oil pipeline’s SCADA system, then be very afraid.
Talking of Assange, what's the latest news? Is he still in jail in this country
Still in jail in the UK. US government is appealing the UK court’s decision not to deport him to the US, but he was refused bail as an obvious flight risk.
It's great that after warning about this for years, the mainstream has finally conceded that the Tory economic programme was a complete and utter disaster.
The difference is that austerity was necessary in 2010 because Gordon Brown had blown all the money and was running a structural deficit.
Prior to the pandemic the 2018/19 deficit was considerably lower than the 2007/08 deficit, so the structural deficit coming out now should be much lower too.
The Tories fixed the roof that Brown trashed.
Why don't you watch the clip. The economist there said austerity was a disaster.
It was not necessary. It was never necessary. It did not work.
Economist? Are you talking about the clip of the Lord who setup Cobra beer? Because he isn't an economist.
Wasn't aware the BoE head didn't know what they were talking about, or the head of the IMF? But perhaps you know more
You forget the first two laws of economics
The first being that for every economist there will be an equal and opposite economist The second being Both will be wrong
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Taking a pro-active to engaging culture war issues for their core vote was always going to be risky, and they're in danger of coming a cropper with it.
Well he would say that wouldn't he? Just as the drink industry is kept afloat by alcoholics and betting by gambling addicts, so Ingerland football support is built on a bedrock of 17 pints of faaaacking lager monkey grunters. Ingerland would prefer not to admit this.
And as others have pointed out he has no way of knowing unless GCHQ has dropped everything else, including surveilling Russia and China, and rushed to his aid.
It is definitely true there were bots fanning the flames. I saw it on twitter some very dodgy accounts with the classic russian tactic...they were posting video such as two black guys beating up an italian fan, while other dodgy accounts posting a white guy getting into it with a black guy....then an italian fan starting on an england fan.
I was however rather surprised however when they suddenly said 70% came from abroad....
Not intended at all as patronising advice for Mr Urquhart. But I've quoted him and written it now and CBA. People need to stop losing their shit over stuff they've seen Online full stop. It isn't great for anyone's mental health, and a lot of it is turns out to be faked. This applies to Left and Right equally. Start with the question "What reaction is this intending to provoke in me?" Then ask "Who benefits if I respond in that way?" Not you, I guarantee.
I think that is very wise advice. It isn't even about stuff to lose your shit over, so much of it manipulative. I would hate to be a teenager now with it, when you aren't also perhaps quite a wise to what might be the game being played and why.
Would you like to tell the media this? It makes up a large part of their daily coverage these days.
In terms of the Russian twitter stuff. It was as much out of interest to see if they were playing silly buggers and I soon found a dodgy account which only comes alive when there is unrest....looked at some hashtags they were using, did some digging and within a few minutes I had found a number of accounts which were clearly doing the same, but strangely containing their videos to only certain "angles".
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Erhhh...you realise the polls out today show a increased leads? With one as large as 12 points? And that the split on taking the knee remains, very anti by Tory voters, very pro by Labour voters.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Erhhh...you realise the polls out today show a increased leads? With one as large as 12 points? And that the split on taking the knee remains, very anti by Tory voters, very pro by Labour voters.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
These polls won't have gauged the effect particularly yet. There definitely will be some effect on middle-ground support from the footballers having complained about the government today and yesterday.
It's not so much specifically about taking the knee as the government being seen to be in conflict with ( one of ) the national team(s).
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
It's great that after warning about this for years, the mainstream has finally conceded that the Tory economic programme was a complete and utter disaster.
The difference is that austerity was necessary in 2010 because Gordon Brown had blown all the money and was running a structural deficit.
Prior to the pandemic the 2018/19 deficit was considerably lower than the 2007/08 deficit, so the structural deficit coming out now should be much lower too.
The Tories fixed the roof that Brown trashed.
Why don't you watch the clip. The economist there said austerity was a disaster.
It was not necessary. It was never necessary. It did not work.
Economist? Are you talking about the clip of the Lord who setup Cobra beer? Because he isn't an economist.
It's great that after warning about this for years, the mainstream has finally conceded that the Tory economic programme was a complete and utter disaster.
The difference is that austerity was necessary in 2010 because Gordon Brown had blown all the money and was running a structural deficit.
Prior to the pandemic the 2018/19 deficit was considerably lower than the 2007/08 deficit, so the structural deficit coming out now should be much lower too.
The Tories fixed the roof that Brown trashed.
Why don't you watch the clip. The economist there said austerity was a disaster.
It was not necessary. It was never necessary. It did not work.
Economist? Are you talking about the clip of the Lord who setup Cobra beer? Because he isn't an economist.
And a big Labour donor I think
Officially he is a cross bench peer, but he has a long history of tearing into the Tory government from austerity to immigration, and also was one of the lead people for a second vote on Brexit campaign....so not exactly a dispassionate and impartial observer of the economist persuasion.
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Erhhh...you realise the polls out today show a increased leads? With one as large as 12 points? And that the split on taking the knee remains, very anti by Tory voters, very pro by Labour voters.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
These polls won't have gauged the effect particularly yet. There definitely will be some effect on middle-ground support from the footballers having complained about the government today and yesterday.
It's not so much specifically about taking the knee as the government being seen to be in conflict with ( one of ) the national team (s).
Perhaps, but Hancock breaking the covid rules, shagging around during office hours with his mistress, who he hired to advice him....that caused massive uproar in the press for over a week....and it didn't move the needle.
Boris balls up COVID, now we have the Indian variant everywhere, high case numbers etc etc etc, didn't move the needle.
The footballer complaining about the government basically said your fault you said taking the knee was virtue signalling....which a large majority of Tory voters are against taking the knee in the first place.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Err… the Brexit- and Tory-supporting Daily Mail is having a serious case of post cognitive dissonance:
Britain isn't working: 'Perfect storm' of the pandemic, furlough and Brexit has left hundreds of thousands of vacancies unfilled - and could spark food shortages, inflation and a stalled recovery
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Erhhh...you realise the polls out today show a increased leads? With one as large as 12 points? And that the split on taking the knee remains, very anti by Tory voters, very pro by Labour voters.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
These polls won't have gauged the effect particularly yet. There definitely will be some effect on middle-ground support from the footballers having complained about the government today and yesterday.
It's not so much specifically about taking the knee as the government being seen to be in conflict with ( one of ) the national team (s).
Perhaps, but Hancock breaking the covid rules, shagging around during office hours with his mistress, who he hired to advice him....that caused massive uproar in the press for over a week....and it didn't move the needle.
Boris balls up COVID, now we have the Indian variant everywhere, high case numbers etc etc etc, didn't move the needle.
The footballer complaining about the government basically said your fault you said taking the knee was virtue signalling....which a large majority of Tory voters seem to think is the case.
The problem for the government is basically an emotive one relating both to sport and patriotism. A large proportion of the country was with the players as they stepped up to take the penalties, and so only two days later, despite all the culture war polarisation of earlier times, many are still going to be feeling more inclined to listen to the team, and their idea of patriotism, than the government.
No.10 know the dangers of this, which is why they've furiously being trying to change the news agenda all day. First they focused on "summoning" the tech companies to explain themselves, and then switched to trying to change the story of why Johnson isn't meeting the team. All this effort just reflects the problem they know they have.
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Though the Tories have managed to maintain full employment while removing Labour's deficit, going back to the "austerity" conversation that started this. That's not something many were predicting in 2009/10.
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Taking a pro-active to engaging culture war issues for their core vote was always going to be risky, and they're in danger of coming a cropper with it.
Maybe if other players follow but so far none of them have decided to go where Mings went. Perhaps they just want a break for the summer rather than to engage in a high profile spat.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
The swing to the Tories in Blyth Valley was 2.4% in 2019, 2.8% in 2017 and 1.65% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
More seriously, the Redfield poll is interesting - big LibDem surge from 8 to 12 for no obvious reason that I can think of. Just random variation, perrhaps, or...?
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
And quoting from Hansard is entirely legal isn't it?
The press now have the right to report the name, but are choosing not to. For what is possibly the first time ever.
As MI5 likely take him into protective custody. It’s going to be a right mess in Parliament becuase the MP has the absolute right to speak, but would be in breach of something similar to a D-Notice if he said anything outside the Chamber.
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Taking a pro-active to engaging culture war issues for their core vote was always going to be risky, and they're in danger of coming a cropper with it.
Maybe if other players follow but so far none of them have decided to go where Mings went. Perhaps they just want a break for the summer rather than to engage in a high profile spat.
Harry Maguire has done an interview with the Sun, his comments seem more circumspect, instead focusing on the social media companies.
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Erhhh...you realise the polls out today show a increased leads? With one as large as 12 points? And that the split on taking the knee remains, very anti by Tory voters, very pro by Labour voters.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
These polls won't have gauged the effect particularly yet. There definitely will be some effect on middle-ground support from the footballers having complained about the government today and yesterday.
It's not so much specifically about taking the knee as the government being seen to be in conflict with ( one of ) the national team (s).
Perhaps, but Hancock breaking the covid rules, shagging around during office hours with his mistress, who he hired to advice him....that caused massive uproar in the press for over a week....and it didn't move the needle.
Boris balls up COVID, now we have the Indian variant everywhere, high case numbers etc etc etc, didn't move the needle.
The footballer complaining about the government basically said your fault you said taking the knee was virtue signalling....which a large majority of Tory voters seem to think is the case.
The problem for the government is basically an emotive one relating both to sport and patriotism. A large proportion of the country was with the players as they stepped up to take the penalties, and so only two days later, despite all the culture war polarisation of earlier times, many are still going to be feeling more inclined to listen to the team, and their idea of patriotism, than the government.
No.10 know the dangers of this, which is why they've furiously being trying to change the news agenda all day. First they focused on "summoning" the tech companies to explain themselves, and then switched to trying to change the story of why Johnson isn't meeting the team. All this effort just reflects the problem they know they have.
They saw an open goal. A bunch of Marxist knee-taking young Lefties who would inevitably, as they have so many times before, disgrace themselves both on and off the pitch. And slammed the ball home. Wrong net.
More seriously, the Redfield poll is interesting - big LibDem surge from 8 to 12 for no obvious reason that I can think of. Just random variation, perrhaps, or...?
I think it is mostly random noise, but there is clearly a trend of slightly better LD scores in the last month of so. Perhaps their 'true support' is up from 8% to 9% or whatever, but that would make a 12% outlier much more likely than before even if it was still an outlier.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Though the Tories have managed to maintain full employment while removing Labour's deficit, going back to the "austerity" conversation that started this. That's not something many were predicting in 2009/10.
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
Have they removed the deficit? I could swear I heard the PM say it was the highest in 60 years just today.
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
That was the opposite. An MP mentioned the name in Parliament, and it was on every front page the next day.
In this case, an MP has mentioned a name, and the press are censoring themselves. (The name isn’t a public figure, he’s a former solider accused of an historical crime in NI)
The Tories have to be very careful with this. It definitely will have cost a few points in the polls already.
Erhhh...you realise the polls out today show a increased leads? With one as large as 12 points? And that the split on taking the knee remains, very anti by Tory voters, very pro by Labour voters.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
These polls won't have gauged the effect particularly yet. There definitely will be some effect on middle-ground support from the footballers having complained about the government today and yesterday.
It's not so much specifically about taking the knee as the government being seen to be in conflict with ( one of ) the national team (s).
Perhaps, but Hancock breaking the covid rules, shagging around during office hours with his mistress, who he hired to advice him....that caused massive uproar in the press for over a week....and it didn't move the needle.
Boris balls up COVID, now we have the Indian variant everywhere, high case numbers etc etc etc, didn't move the needle.
The footballer complaining about the government basically said your fault you said taking the knee was virtue signalling....which a large majority of Tory voters seem to think is the case.
The problem for the government is basically an emotive one relating both to sport and patriotism. A large proportion of the country was with the players as they stepped up to take the penalties, and so only two days later, despite all the culture war polarisation of earlier times, many are still going to be feeling more inclined to listen to the team, and their idea of patriotism, than the government.
No.10 know the dangers of this, which is why they've furiously being trying to change the news agenda all day. First they focused on "summoning" the tech companies to explain themselves, and then switched to trying to change the story of why Johnson isn't meeting the team. All this effort just reflects the problem they know they have.
I just don't know these days.
I presumed the Tories would take a bit hit over all the balls up over COVID third wave. I think they got a bit of a benefit of the doubt over wave one, wave two (plus Big Dom scandal) hit their numbers, but they got the vaccine bounce...but the third wave, can clearly be put down to international travel etc etc etc and then we got delay of Freedom day, now the sort of Freedom Day mess.
That should be a recipe for a getting kicked in the knackers in the polls.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
The swing to the Tories in Blyth Valley was 2.4% in 2019, 2.8% in 2017 and 1.65% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
You're making multiple mistakes.
Firstly Osborne's policies like Help To Buy etc which have helped driver massively improved housing construction and home ownership were only getting into gear by 2015, they've really increased home ownership rates more in more recent years hence why swings would accelerate in recent years.
Furthermore you need to contrast the local swing with the national swing.
The swing to the Tories nationally was -0.3% in 2015, -2.05% in 2017 and 4.55% in 2019.
Relative to the national swing then, the swing to the Tories was:
In Blyth 2.15 LESS in 2019 than nationally, 4.85 MORE in 2017, 1.95 MORE in 2015. In Bolsover 6.95 MORE in 2019, 9.75 MORE in 2017, 0.3 LESS in 2015 In Bishop Auckland 4.95 MORE in 2019, 5.9 MORE in 2017, 2.2 MORE in 2015
So apart from Bolsover 2015 in all those seats the swing to the Tories was going faster than the nation swing at both prior elections. Including pre-Brexit, pre-Corbyn.
The trend was to the Tories for years and most of the swing had already occurred in 2015 and 2017. 2019 was the final push to put it over the top. The worrying element for Labour is that there are more seats that could swing next time with a further push over the top.
I don’t understand why so many of the responses seem annoyed that UK accounts weren’t behind more of the racism. Surely if you genuinely cared about racial cohesion and the well-being of black footballers you should be wanting to embrace the news that it was a relatively tiny number and they don’t have loads of racist dickheads living among them and footballers don’t need to be looking over their shoulders.
To try and over-inflate the size of the domestic social media racism issue to push the usual anti British narrative only serves to unsettle the victims.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Though the Tories have managed to maintain full employment while removing Labour's deficit, going back to the "austerity" conversation that started this. That's not something many were predicting in 2009/10.
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
Have they removed the deficit? I could swear I heard the PM say it was the highest in 60 years just today.
They’ve removed Labour’s deficit which was a really bad thing. The Tory deficit is just fine however.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Though the Tories have managed to maintain full employment while removing Labour's deficit, going back to the "austerity" conversation that started this. That's not something many were predicting in 2009/10.
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
Have they removed the deficit? I could swear I heard the PM say it was the highest in 60 years just today.
To be fair to Brown today's deficit is a Covid deficit and not Brown's deficit.
Going back to the earlier discussion Brown's deficit had been fixed by Osborne to the point that debt to GDP fell every single year from 2015 onwards.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Though the Tories have managed to maintain full employment while removing Labour's deficit, going back to the "austerity" conversation that started this. That's not something many were predicting in 2009/10.
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
Have they removed the deficit? I could swear I heard the PM say it was the highest in 60 years just today.
They’ve removed Labour’s deficit which was a really bad thing. The Tory deficit is just fine however.
The Covid deficit will need removing too, but thankfully its not structural like Brown's was.
Brown's deficit saw debt to GDP rising every year from 2001 onwards before the recession hit. Osborne's fixed roof saw debt to GDP falling every year from 2015 onwards before the recession hit.
Do you understand the difference or do you need it explaining further?
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
And quoting from Hansard is entirely legal isn't it?
The press now have the right to report the name, but are choosing not to. For what is possibly the first time ever.
As MI5 likely take him into protective custody. It’s going to be a right mess in Parliament becuase the MP has the absolute right to speak, but would be in breach of something similar to a D-Notice if he said anything outside the Chamber.
Would the MP be in breach outside the Chamber now?
Or couldn't the MP quote himself, as the press can do, now outside the Chamber?
The first time ever, that someone who shouldnt be named, is named in Parliament, and the media decide to censor themselves rather than report the name..?
And quoting from Hansard is entirely legal isn't it?
The press now have the right to report the name, but are choosing not to. For what is possibly the first time ever.
As MI5 likely take him into protective custody. It’s going to be a right mess in Parliament becuase the MP has the absolute right to speak, but would be in breach of something similar to a D-Notice if he said anything outside the Chamber.
Would the MP be in breach outside the Chamber now?
Or couldn't the MP quote himself, as the press can do, now outside the Chamber?
I'm not sure how this works, its very murky.
It’s very simple.
The MP can say what he likes inside the Chamber, and the media can report what was said in Parliament. The MP cannot name the name outside the Chamber, but can comment on what was said inside.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
The swing to the Tories in Blyth Valley was 2.4% in 2019, 2.8% in 2017 and 1.65% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
You're making multiple mistakes.
Firstly Osborne's policies like Help To Buy etc which have helped driver massively improved housing construction and home ownership were only getting into gear by 2015, they've really increased home ownership rates more in more recent years hence why swings would accelerate in recent years.
Furthermore you need to contrast the local swing with the national swing.
The swing to the Tories nationally was -0.3% in 2015, -2.05% in 2017 and 4.55% in 2019.
Relative to the national swing then, the swing to the Tories was:
In Blyth 2.15 LESS in 2019 than nationally, 4.85 MORE in 2017, 1.95 MORE in 2015. In Bolsover 6.95 MORE in 2019, 9.75 MORE in 2017, 0.3 LESS in 2015 In Bishop Auckland 4.95 MORE in 2019, 5.9 MORE in 2017, 2.2 MORE in 2015
So apart from Bolsover 2015 in all those seats the swing to the Tories was going faster than the nation swing at both prior elections. Including pre-Brexit, pre-Corbyn.
The trend was to the Tories for years and most of the swing had already occurred in 2015 and 2017. 2019 was the final push to put it over the top. The worrying element for Labour is that there are more seats that could swing next time with a further push over the top.
There are cheaper house prices and thus more home ownership in those areas largely because they are outside the commuter belt for London and more affordable for first time buyers not because of Osborne's Help to Buy.
In 2015 as you have shown in all 3 seats there was less than 2.5% difference from the national swing, yet by 2017 there was more than 5% higher swing to the Tories in 2 of the 3 and almost 5% swing higher to the Tories in the other.
In Bolsover and Bishop Auckland in 2019 there was also a swing of more than 4% in 2 of the 3, albeit with the exception of Blyth's below average swing.
Any further swing to the Tories would mainly be entirely from squeezing the Brexit Party vote as in Hartlepool, though as Batley and Spen showed that would still not be enough unless it was really high.
However as Chesham showed there has also been a swing to the LDs in southern Remain areas in post Brexit to counter the swing to the Tories in the Leave voting Red Wall and also Labour now hold some Remain seats like Enfield Southgate, Warwick and Leamington, Croydon Central, Putney, Battersea, Brighton Kemptown, Bristol NW and Reading East which the Tories won in 2015, so it has not all been one way traffic
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
Now that I like. "Seats that demographically should be Tory but were Labour historically." A definition. But, the "demographically should be Tory" needs a "now" after it. Many of the old mining seats have fallen because the Tories have hoovered up the votes of the old in recent years. And the seats skew heavily old. They traditionally voted Labour because of their political demography which suited Labour then. And now vote Tory because of their political demography which now suits the Tories. It isn't because of some Damascene conversion to the ramblings of Ayn Rand.
The Tories aren't just the party of Ayn Rand of course, as much as I might admire her thoughts personally.
And its not just the elderly voting Tory in these seats either. The stereotypical example is some eg like an electrician who now owns their own home, has two cars and is basically content with their lives. They're now voting Tory and its not because they're distraught at the Council cutting services.
Yeah I get that. Certain demographics have been drifting Tory for a while. And a large swathe of the North (though not all) is doing very well. Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that. You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that. This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Absolutely. Full employment and affordable housing is a fantastic combination.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
I would also add. If you don't get on with your parents and have 2 or 3 mates in the same boat, you can easily afford to rent up here, outside the cities, even on a full time minimum wage job. This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now. They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
Though the Tories have managed to maintain full employment while removing Labour's deficit, going back to the "austerity" conversation that started this. That's not something many were predicting in 2009/10.
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
Have they removed the deficit? I could swear I heard the PM say it was the highest in 60 years just today.
To be fair to Brown today's deficit is a Covid deficit and not Brown's deficit.
Going back to the earlier discussion Brown's deficit had been fixed by Osborne to the point that debt to GDP fell every single year from 2015 onwards.
Love that that came in right after @Gallowgate's comment. That is PB serendipity. Like Max going all in on Hancock staying.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
The swing to the Tories in Blyth Valley was 2.4% in 2019, 2.8% in 2017 and 1.65% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
You're making multiple mistakes.
Firstly Osborne's policies like Help To Buy etc which have helped driver massively improved housing construction and home ownership were only getting into gear by 2015, they've really increased home ownership rates more in more recent years hence why swings would accelerate in recent years.
Furthermore you need to contrast the local swing with the national swing.
The swing to the Tories nationally was -0.3% in 2015, -2.05% in 2017 and 4.55% in 2019.
Relative to the national swing then, the swing to the Tories was:
In Blyth 2.15 LESS in 2019 than nationally, 4.85 MORE in 2017, 1.95 MORE in 2015. In Bolsover 6.95 MORE in 2019, 9.75 MORE in 2017, 0.3 LESS in 2015 In Bishop Auckland 4.95 MORE in 2019, 5.9 MORE in 2017, 2.2 MORE in 2015
So apart from Bolsover 2015 in all those seats the swing to the Tories was going faster than the nation swing at both prior elections. Including pre-Brexit, pre-Corbyn.
The trend was to the Tories for years and most of the swing had already occurred in 2015 and 2017. 2019 was the final push to put it over the top. The worrying element for Labour is that there are more seats that could swing next time with a further push over the top.
There are cheaper house prices and thus more home ownership in those areas largely because they are outside the commuter belt for London and more affordable for first time buyers not because of Osborne's Help to Buy.
In 2015 as you have shown in all 3 seats there was less than 2.5% difference from the national swing, yet by 2017 there was more than 5% higher swing to the Tories in 2 of the 3 and almost 5% swing higher to the Tories in the other.
In Bolsover and Bishop Auckland in 2019 there was also a swing of more than 4% in 2 of the 3, albeit with the exception of Blyth's below average swing.
Any further swing to the Tories would mainly be entirely from squeezing the Brexit Party vote as in Hartlepool, though as Batley and Spen showed that would still not be enough unless it was really high.
However as Chesham showed there has also been a swing to the LDs in southern Remain areas in post Brexit to counter the swing to the Tories in the Leave voting Red Wall and also Labour now hold some Remain seats like Enfield Southgate, Warwick and Leamington, Croydon Central, Putney, Battersea, Brighton Kemptown, Bristol NW and Reading East which the Tories won in 2015, so it has not all been one way traffic
Its not simply not being the commuter belt for London which has always been true, what Help To Buy has done (and every Red Wall PBer from any Party says the same thing) has put a rocket under construction over here. Outside of the cities anywhere you drive in the Northwest (and from what Rochdale and Gallowgate and others say in the North East too) is estate after estate of new build houses.
Those houses have been sold to buyers and mean that home ownership rates have jumped up here. And with home ownership, come voting Tory.
There isn't a single Northern suburban PBer I can think of who doesn't note the large amount of housing being built here - and that's what is different to the South were the paranoid fear of housing is fuelling NIMBYism rather than lots of actual housing fuelling new owners occupying their new homes.
And again any further swings do not need to be from swinging the Brexit vote, since squeezing the UKIP vote isn't how the Tories have been getting swings in the first place. Tory+BXP now is much, much, much higher than Tory+UKIP was in 2010, so the swing has come from elsewhere.
People who used to pay rent and vote Labour or Lib Dem or Green now have their own home and vote Tory.
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
The swing to the Tories in Blyth Valley was 2.4% in 2019, 2.8% in 2017 and 1.65% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
You're making multiple mistakes.
Firstly Osborne's policies like Help To Buy etc which have helped driver massively improved housing construction and home ownership were only getting into gear by 2015, they've really increased home ownership rates more in more recent years hence why swings would accelerate in recent years.
Furthermore you need to contrast the local swing with the national swing.
The swing to the Tories nationally was -0.3% in 2015, -2.05% in 2017 and 4.55% in 2019.
Relative to the national swing then, the swing to the Tories was:
In Blyth 2.15 LESS in 2019 than nationally, 4.85 MORE in 2017, 1.95 MORE in 2015. In Bolsover 6.95 MORE in 2019, 9.75 MORE in 2017, 0.3 LESS in 2015 In Bishop Auckland 4.95 MORE in 2019, 5.9 MORE in 2017, 2.2 MORE in 2015
So apart from Bolsover 2015 in all those seats the swing to the Tories was going faster than the nation swing at both prior elections. Including pre-Brexit, pre-Corbyn.
The trend was to the Tories for years and most of the swing had already occurred in 2015 and 2017. 2019 was the final push to put it over the top. The worrying element for Labour is that there are more seats that could swing next time with a further push over the top.
There are cheaper house prices and thus more home ownership in those areas largely because they are outside the commuter belt for London and more affordable for first time buyers not because of Osborne's Help to Buy.
In 2015 as you have shown in all 3 seats there was less than 2.5% difference from the national swing, yet by 2017 there was more than 5% higher swing to the Tories in 2 of the 3 and almost 5% swing higher to the Tories in the other.
In Bolsover and Bishop Auckland in 2019 there was also a swing of more than 4% in 2 of the 3, albeit with the exception of Blyth's below average swing.
Any further swing to the Tories would mainly be entirely from squeezing the Brexit Party vote as in Hartlepool, though as Batley and Spen showed that would still not be enough unless it was really high.
However as Chesham showed there has also been a swing to the LDs in southern Remain areas in post Brexit to counter the swing to the Tories in the Leave voting Red Wall and also Labour now hold some Remain seats like Enfield Southgate, Warwick and Leamington, Croydon Central, Putney, Battersea, Brighton Kemptown, Bristol NW and Reading East which the Tories won in 2015, so it has not all been one way traffic
Its not simply not being the commuter belt for London which has always been true, what Help To Buy has done (and every Red Wall PBer from any Party says the same thing) has put a rocket under construction over here. Outside of the cities anywhere you drive in the Northwest (and from what Rochdale and Gallowgate and others say in the North East too) is estate after estate of new build houses.
Those houses have been sold to buyers and mean that home ownership rates have jumped up here. And with home ownership, come voting Tory.
There isn't a single Northern suburban PBer I can think of who doesn't note the large amount of housing being built here - and that's what is different to the South were the paranoid fear of housing is fuelling NIMBYism rather than lots of actual housing fuelling new owners occupying their new homes.
And again any further swings do not need to be from swinging the Brexit vote, since squeezing the UKIP vote isn't how the Tories have been getting swings in the first place. Tory+BXP now is much, much, much higher than Tory+UKIP was in 2010, so the swing has come from elsewhere.
People who used to pay rent and vote Labour or Lib Dem or Green now have their own home and vote Tory.
Even if you built vast numbers of new builds in the South East they would still be at least double and probably triple the price of the new builds in the North because they are in the London commuter belt and therefore also there would still be a greater ratio of house price to earnings further South. It remains the proximity to London that is the key driver of house prices in the UK.
Plus the North also has lower population density than the South East so has more room to put them.
Tory + UKIP was 50% in 2015, the Tories got 44% in 2019, the Brexit Party got 2% and UKIP got 0.07%, so yes clearly the swing has mainly come from the Tories squeezing the UKIP vote since then with some Labour Leavers in the Red Wall added on (some of whom admittedly went Labour 2010, UKIP 2015, Tory or Labour 2017 and Tory 2019).
I do like the idea that 'red-wall' voters switched from Labour to the Tories because they hated Tory austerity.
They switched to get Brexit done and because they disliked Corbyn. Boris' cake for all promise was to reassure them it was safe to do so
They didn't just switch because of Brexit or Corbyn. The Red Wall has been trending for a decade and it matches changes in economics, demographics, home ownership levels etc
The whole point of the terminology Red Wall is it is seats that demographically should be Tory but were voting Labour historically. Cameron and Osborne were chipping away at the Red Wall for years before Brexit and Corbyn and eventually its reached a tipping point.
Now that the tipping point has been reached, it will be naive to think they'll just tip back post-Brexit and post-Corbyn. Because Brexit and Corbyn were not the only issues.
If that was the case the seats would have gone Tory in 2017 which was only 2 years before 2019 after all.
Yes increased home ownership made them marginal Labour seats rather than safe Labour seats but it was the desire to get Brexit done as well as defeat Corbyn which was pivotal in turning so many Tory in 2019
The seats did swing in 2017 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
If the same swing in 2015 and 2017 in the red wall had been repeated in 2019 most of them would still be Labour, it was getting Brexit done, defeating Corbyn and Boris' promise to end austerity that was so pivotal in seeing such a big swing in the Red Wall in 2019
Not really true.
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
The swing to the Tories in Blyth Valley was 2.4% in 2019, 2.8% in 2017 and 1.65% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
You're making multiple mistakes.
Firstly Osborne's policies like Help To Buy etc which have helped driver massively improved housing construction and home ownership were only getting into gear by 2015, they've really increased home ownership rates more in more recent years hence why swings would accelerate in recent years.
Furthermore you need to contrast the local swing with the national swing.
The swing to the Tories nationally was -0.3% in 2015, -2.05% in 2017 and 4.55% in 2019.
Relative to the national swing then, the swing to the Tories was:
In Blyth 2.15 LESS in 2019 than nationally, 4.85 MORE in 2017, 1.95 MORE in 2015. In Bolsover 6.95 MORE in 2019, 9.75 MORE in 2017, 0.3 LESS in 2015 In Bishop Auckland 4.95 MORE in 2019, 5.9 MORE in 2017, 2.2 MORE in 2015
So apart from Bolsover 2015 in all those seats the swing to the Tories was going faster than the nation swing at both prior elections. Including pre-Brexit, pre-Corbyn.
The trend was to the Tories for years and most of the swing had already occurred in 2015 and 2017. 2019 was the final push to put it over the top. The worrying element for Labour is that there are more seats that could swing next time with a further push over the top.
There are cheaper house prices and thus more home ownership in those areas largely because they are outside the commuter belt for London and more affordable for first time buyers not because of Osborne's Help to Buy.
In 2015 as you have shown in all 3 seats there was less than 2.5% difference from the national swing, yet by 2017 there was more than 5% higher swing to the Tories in 2 of the 3 and almost 5% swing higher to the Tories in the other.
In Bolsover and Bishop Auckland in 2019 there was also a swing of more than 4% in 2 of the 3, albeit with the exception of Blyth's below average swing.
Any further swing to the Tories would mainly be entirely from squeezing the Brexit Party vote as in Hartlepool, though as Batley and Spen showed that would still not be enough unless it was really high.
However as Chesham showed there has also been a swing to the LDs in southern Remain areas in post Brexit to counter the swing to the Tories in the Leave voting Red Wall and also Labour now hold some Remain seats like Enfield Southgate, Warwick and Leamington, Croydon Central, Putney, Battersea, Brighton Kemptown, Bristol NW and Reading East which the Tories won in 2015, so it has not all been one way traffic
Its not simply not being the commuter belt for London which has always been true, what Help To Buy has done (and every Red Wall PBer from any Party says the same thing) has put a rocket under construction over here. Outside of the cities anywhere you drive in the Northwest (and from what Rochdale and Gallowgate and others say in the North East too) is estate after estate of new build houses.
Those houses have been sold to buyers and mean that home ownership rates have jumped up here. And with home ownership, come voting Tory.
There isn't a single Northern suburban PBer I can think of who doesn't note the large amount of housing being built here - and that's what is different to the South were the paranoid fear of housing is fuelling NIMBYism rather than lots of actual housing fuelling new owners occupying their new homes.
And again any further swings do not need to be from swinging the Brexit vote, since squeezing the UKIP vote isn't how the Tories have been getting swings in the first place. Tory+BXP now is much, much, much higher than Tory+UKIP was in 2010, so the swing has come from elsewhere.
People who used to pay rent and vote Labour or Lib Dem or Green now have their own home and vote Tory.
Even if you built vast numbers of new builds in the South East they would still be at least double and probably triple the price of the new builds in the North because they are in the London commuter belt and therefore also there would still be a greater ratio of house price to earnings further South. It remains the proximity to London that is the key driver of house prices in the UK.
Plus the North also has lower population density than the South East so has more room to put them.
Tory + UKIP was 50% in 2015, the Tories got 44% in 2019, the Brexit Party got 2% and UKIP got 0.07%, so yes clearly the swing has mainly come from the Tories squeezing the UKIP vote since then with some Labour Leavers in the Red Wall added on (some of whom admittedly went Labour 2010, UKIP 2015, Tory or Labour 2017 and Tory 2019).
And again you're confusing the national with the local picture. In 2010 Blyth Valley voted 20.9% for Con+UKIP, Lab+LD was 71.7 ... By 2019 it was 51.0 Con+UKIP, Lab+LD 46.2
A weird situation where the press is not naming the person named in the House of Commons a few hours ago, but the name is freely available for anyone to read on Hansard.
A weird situation where the press is not naming the person named in the House of Commons a few hours ago, but the name is freely available for anyone to read on Hansard.
We are talking about social media and racism etc.....auto complete in various social media also gives the answer to this (even they are busy taking down posts that mention this).
More seriously, the Redfield poll is interesting - big LibDem surge from 8 to 12 for no obvious reason that I can think of. Just random variation, perrhaps, or...?
That swing, if repeated nationally, would result in Labour taking every single seat in the House of Commons.
The Honiton result must have been a personal vote of some kind. That's the only time you get movements like that in local elections. I expect a popular LD councillor had stood down, looking at the figures.
Disturbing message from S Africa’s President about the results of the continuing trouble in KwaZulu-Natal etc. Too much to hope that Jacob Zuma, who presided over one of the world’s worst corruption scandals, might now tell his supporters from his jail cell to stop the looting?"
US inflation hit a 13-year high in June, driven by a rise in the cost of used cars.
Consumer prices rose 5.4% in the 12 months to the end of June, up from 5% the previous month, the largest increase since August 2008.
The jump in prices will put pressure on the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy sooner than expected, which could in turn dampen a consumer-led recovery and drive demands for wage increases.
Comments
They also swang in 2015 to the Tories relative to the national swing.
That continued in 2019 which took it past a tipping point.
People need to stop losing their shit over stuff they've seen Online full stop.
It isn't great for anyone's mental health, and a lot of it is turns out to be faked.
This applies to Left and Right equally.
Start with the question "What reaction is this intending to provoke in me?"
Then ask "Who benefits if I respond in that way?"
Not you, I guarantee.
The first being that for every economist there will be an equal and opposite economist
The second being Both will be wrong
Taking a pro-active to engaging culture war issues for their core vote was always going to be risky, and they're in danger of coming a cropper with it.
Would you like to tell the media this? It makes up a large part of their daily coverage these days.
In terms of the Russian twitter stuff. It was as much out of interest to see if they were playing silly buggers and I soon found a dodgy account which only comes alive when there is unrest....looked at some hashtags they were using, did some digging and within a few minutes I had found a number of accounts which were clearly doing the same, but strangely containing their videos to only certain "angles".
Full employment (in an economics sense) for the first time in nearly 3 generations, and affordable housing is a huge part of that.
You can leave school with few, if any, qualifications, get an unskilled job, live with your parents and within a few years own your own home. My neighbour's kid has just done that.
This is not to be sniffed at, or handwaved away. From down South, from the Left, or from anywhere else.
Despite the Hancock scandal, taking the knee stuff, the balls up of COVID, Tories still on ~42%.
Personally I have no problem with taking the knee, it is personal choice but most Tory voters will not be concerned Boris is not woke enough
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1414951623437193224?s=20
It's not so much specifically about taking the knee as the government being seen to be in conflict with ( one of ) the national team(s).
Take Blyth Valley as an example. It went from 16.6% Tory (third place) in 2010 to 42.7% Tory (winner) in 2019. So the Tories in the decade gained 26.1% vote share. However only 5.8% of the gain happened at the 2019 election, 20.3% of the gain had already happened by 2017. More than three quarters of the gain in Tory share was already baked in by 2017.
Same with Bolsover. The Tories went from 24.6% (runners up) to 47.4% (winners). But only 6.9% of the gain happened at 2019, 70% of the gain in share was baked in already by 2017.
Or Bishop Auckland. From 26.3% (runners up) to 53.7% (winners). But only 6.8% of the gain happened at 2019, more than three quarters of the gain had already happened by 2017.
2019 was a tipping point continuing pre-existing swings.
There's a reason the Tories are being rewarded. Not Labour Councillors being punished, whatever the spin from London Labour supporters may be.
Maybe Sturgeon should hold a reception for them instead.
Boris balls up COVID, now we have the Indian variant everywhere, high case numbers etc etc etc, didn't move the needle.
The footballer complaining about the government basically said your fault you said taking the knee was virtue signalling....which a large majority of Tory voters are against taking the knee in the first place.
@tomhfh
The Centre for Identifying Digital Hate identified 105 instagram accounts that directed racial abuse against Rashford, Saka, and Sancho.
BBC Newsnight analysed the location of these accounts. Of those they could identify 59 outside the UK, and just 5 within the UK.
10:57 PM · Jul 13, 2021"
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1415067980334051329
This is a seismic change from my youth. The process began under Labour. The Tories are reaping the rewards. For now.
They really ought not to be cheering house price rises of 10% + up here.
https://twitter.com/BrettKelman/status/1415023788777934850
Britain isn't working: 'Perfect storm' of the pandemic, furlough and Brexit has left hundreds of thousands of vacancies unfilled - and could spark food shortages, inflation and a stalled recovery
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9778331/Britain-isnt-working.html?fbclid=IwAR112sYIjWkWIq9uvwRRKYjyA9iIzFdL1Ite_nGiOhvQ3OvkFpiC8VnZkp4
No.10 know the dangers of this, which is why they've furiously being trying to change the news agenda all day. First they focused on "summoning" the tech companies to explain themselves, and then switched to trying to change the story of why Johnson isn't meeting the team. All this effort just reflects the problem they know they have.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/13/bloody-sunday-soldier-f-named-parliament-irish-nationalist/
Its remarkable how many people are upset at the notion that we have full employment now and are considering a problem not a good thing.
And quoting from Hansard is entirely legal isn't it?
The swing to the Tories in Bolsover was 11.5% in 2019, 7.7% in 2017 and -0.6% in 2015.
The swing to the Tories in Bishop Auckland was 9.5% in 2019, 3.85% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2015.
So despite increased home ownership etc there was barely any Tory swing in 2015 in those areas and a swing against the Tories in Bolsover, the big swing to the Tories in those Red Wall seats came post Brexit and because of Corbyn, especially in 2019
Honiton St Michael's (East Devon), council by-election result:
LAB: 58.0% (+58.0)
CON: 37.5% (-15.5)
LDEM: 4.5% (-42.5)
Labour GAIN from Liberal Democrat.
More seriously, the Redfield poll is interesting - big LibDem surge from 8 to 12 for no obvious reason that I can think of. Just random variation, perrhaps, or...?
As MI5 likely take him into protective custody. It’s going to be a right mess in Parliament becuase the MP has the absolute right to speak, but would be in breach of something similar to a D-Notice if he said anything outside the Chamber.
Wrong net.
In this case, an MP has mentioned a name, and the press are censoring themselves.
(The name isn’t a public figure, he’s a former solider accused of an historical crime in NI)
I presumed the Tories would take a bit hit over all the balls up over COVID third wave. I think they got a bit of a benefit of the doubt over wave one, wave two (plus Big Dom scandal) hit their numbers, but they got the vaccine bounce...but the third wave, can clearly be put down to international travel etc etc etc and then we got delay of Freedom day, now the sort of Freedom Day mess.
That should be a recipe for a getting kicked in the knackers in the polls.
Firstly Osborne's policies like Help To Buy etc which have helped driver massively improved housing construction and home ownership were only getting into gear by 2015, they've really increased home ownership rates more in more recent years hence why swings would accelerate in recent years.
Furthermore you need to contrast the local swing with the national swing.
The swing to the Tories nationally was -0.3% in 2015, -2.05% in 2017 and 4.55% in 2019.
Relative to the national swing then, the swing to the Tories was:
In Blyth 2.15 LESS in 2019 than nationally, 4.85 MORE in 2017, 1.95 MORE in 2015.
In Bolsover 6.95 MORE in 2019, 9.75 MORE in 2017, 0.3 LESS in 2015
In Bishop Auckland 4.95 MORE in 2019, 5.9 MORE in 2017, 2.2 MORE in 2015
So apart from Bolsover 2015 in all those seats the swing to the Tories was going faster than the nation swing at both prior elections. Including pre-Brexit, pre-Corbyn.
The trend was to the Tories for years and most of the swing had already occurred in 2015 and 2017. 2019 was the final push to put it over the top. The worrying element for Labour is that there are more seats that could swing next time with a further push over the top.
To try and over-inflate the size of the domestic social media racism issue to push the usual anti British narrative only serves to unsettle the victims.
Going back to the earlier discussion Brown's deficit had been fixed by Osborne to the point that debt to GDP fell every single year from 2015 onwards.
Brown's deficit saw debt to GDP rising every year from 2001 onwards before the recession hit. Osborne's fixed roof saw debt to GDP falling every year from 2015 onwards before the recession hit.
Do you understand the difference or do you need it explaining further?
Or couldn't the MP quote himself, as the press can do, now outside the Chamber?
I'm not sure how this works, its very murky.
The MP can say what he likes inside the Chamber, and the media can report what was said in Parliament. The MP cannot name the name outside the Chamber, but can comment on what was said inside.
In 2015 as you have shown in all 3 seats there was less than 2.5% difference from the national swing, yet by 2017 there was more than 5% higher swing to the Tories in 2 of the 3 and almost 5% swing higher to the Tories in the other.
In Bolsover and Bishop Auckland in 2019 there was also a swing of more than 4% in 2 of the 3, albeit with the exception of Blyth's below average swing.
Any further swing to the Tories would mainly be entirely from squeezing the Brexit Party vote as in Hartlepool, though as Batley and Spen showed that would still not be enough unless it was really high.
However as Chesham showed there has also been a swing to the LDs in southern Remain areas in post Brexit to counter the swing to the Tories in the Leave voting Red Wall and also Labour now hold some Remain seats like Enfield Southgate, Warwick and Leamington, Croydon Central, Putney, Battersea, Brighton Kemptown, Bristol NW and Reading East which the Tories won in 2015, so it has not all been one way traffic
That is PB serendipity.
Like Max going all in on Hancock staying.
Those houses have been sold to buyers and mean that home ownership rates have jumped up here. And with home ownership, come voting Tory.
There isn't a single Northern suburban PBer I can think of who doesn't note the large amount of housing being built here - and that's what is different to the South were the paranoid fear of housing is fuelling NIMBYism rather than lots of actual housing fuelling new owners occupying their new homes.
And again any further swings do not need to be from swinging the Brexit vote, since squeezing the UKIP vote isn't how the Tories have been getting swings in the first place. Tory+BXP now is much, much, much higher than Tory+UKIP was in 2010, so the swing has come from elsewhere.
People who used to pay rent and vote Labour or Lib Dem or Green now have their own home and vote Tory.
Plus the North also has lower population density than the South East so has more room to put them.
Tory + UKIP was 50% in 2015, the Tories got 44% in 2019, the Brexit Party got 2% and UKIP got 0.07%, so yes clearly the swing has mainly come from the Tories squeezing the UKIP vote since then with some Labour Leavers in the Red Wall added on (some of whom admittedly went Labour 2010, UKIP 2015, Tory or Labour 2017 and Tory 2019).
Lancashire has a higher population density than Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Sussex, Hampshire or Oxfordshire.
And again you're confusing the national with the local picture. In 2010 Blyth Valley voted 20.9% for Con+UKIP, Lab+LD was 71.7 ... By 2019 it was 51.0 Con+UKIP, Lab+LD 46.2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57825284
"At this point this really is a preventable illness, a preventable infection," a county health official said, according to NBC LA
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9783815/South-African-looters-raid-Durban-warehouses-riots-escalate.html
@JohnSimpsonNews
Disturbing message from S Africa’s President about the results of the continuing trouble in KwaZulu-Natal etc. Too much to hope that Jacob Zuma, who presided over one of the world’s worst corruption scandals, might now tell his supporters from his jail cell to stop the looting?"
https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1414987575744466954
US inflation hit a 13-year high in June, driven by a rise in the cost of used cars.
Consumer prices rose 5.4% in the 12 months to the end of June, up from 5% the previous month, the largest increase since August 2008.
The jump in prices will put pressure on the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy sooner than expected, which could in turn dampen a consumer-led recovery and drive demands for wage increases.
This thread has lost its majority and has been voted out