politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By-election round up

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

first, like Labour in Stoke and Copeland.

Sneaky edit

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

Why not? Is a referendum more important than choosing a government, say?

I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.

But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.

Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?

Why don't we have a referendum on hanging or on the Guillotine for the murder of children? There are some very uncivilized people in this country and their instincts have to be resisted.

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

Why not? Is a referendum more important than choosing a government, say?

I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.

But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.

Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?

Why don't we have a referendum on hanging or on the Guillotine for the murder of children? There are some very uncivilized people in this country and their instincts have to be resisted.

They could be resisted by defeating their arguments. If one cannot convince sensible people or sway idiots, that's the fault of those making the attempt.

foxinsoxuk said:

Nailed it!

llef said:

any reason why Labour's odds in Copeland have zoomed out to 4.5 from 3.5?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

llef said:

any reason why Labour's odds in Copeland have zoomed out to 4.5 from 3.5?

Maybe Toshiba confirming their investment today - Corbyn wants it scrapped

SeanT said:

Toms said:

matt said:

Toms said:

A semi-sequitur from of the previous thread :
I think JK Rowling is fantastic.

Her books have made children read - although to an adult eye they could do with some editing, to a child more is frequently more. Although the less said about her foray into adult literature the better - that wore her political views on its sleeve and was perhaps unhelpful to its success. That's what I mean about success corrupting her writing approach.

Points taken. I also like her what I perceive to be her social ( lefty? ) views.

You might be intrigued to hear that JK Rowling flattened a £1m house next door to hers, just so she could "extend her garden".

Quite the socialist.

AlsoIndigo said:

Roger said:

It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.

Not acceptable !? Do I hear the sound of a petulant foot being stamped ?

You would have been quite happy with the threshold if Remain had won, and I dare say a 60% threshold would have been unacceptable if Leave won even so.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barcelona 2 down in Paris

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barcelona 2 down in Paris

Damn, I had a bet on Barcelona.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

llef said:

any reason why Labour's odds in Copeland have zoomed out to 4.5 from 3.5?

Maybe Toshiba confirming their investment today - Corbyn wants it scrapped

Doesn't look like confirming investment to me, from what I could make out with the radio interview it sounded like now was an opportune time to pump the government for underwriting assurances...........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/14/toshiba-takes-5bn-nuclear-writedown-chairman-resigns/

Toshiba confirmed their investment in Cumbria today notwithstanding their problems. The unions are seeking confirmation that the UK government will support the project. That question will compromise Corbyn who is against the whole construction of the power station

I'm not particularly opposed or in favour of nuclear power, it should compete with other power generation sources on equal terms though.

The problem for labour is that the project employs thousands and Corbyn's opposition will be seen as a threat to all those jobs and the supply chain in the area

Civil nuclear power has always been always little more than a failed part of the military-industrial complex. A difficult conversation between Union Labour and social conscience Labour.

Jobs before dogma - pretty sure in Cumbria and with the long established Sellafield plant the jobs will triumph (a few weeks ago I would have said Trump but there we are)

Yorkcity said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

llef said:

any reason why Labour's odds in Copeland have zoomed out to 4.5 from 3.5?

Maybe Toshiba confirming their investment today - Corbyn wants it scrapped

Doesn't look like confirming investment to me, from what I could make out with the radio interview it sounded like now was an opportune time to pump the government for underwriting assurances...........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/14/toshiba-takes-5bn-nuclear-writedown-chairman-resigns/

Toshiba confirmed their investment in Cumbria today notwithstanding their problems. The unions are seeking confirmation that the UK government will support the project. That question will compromise Corbyn who is against the whole construction of the power station

I'm not particularly opposed or in favour of nuclear power, it should compete with other power generation sources on equal terms though.

The problem for labour is that the project employs thousands and Corbyn's opposition will be seen as a threat to all those jobs and the supply chain in the area

Civil nuclear power has always been always little more than a failed part of the military-industrial complex. A difficult conversation between Union Labour and social conscience Labour.

Jobs before dogma - pretty sure in Cumbria and with the long established Sellafield plant the jobs will triumph (a few weeks ago I would have said Trump but there we are)

Just say May if she is visiting the area it must be in the bag.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

With all the talk of Labour's problems, I thought it would be helpful to see just how bad their situation is on the proposed new boundaries (using Electoral Calculus). If I just move the Lab and Con scores and keep all the other parties the same then we get the follows:

C 37.8%, L 31.2% - the same result as 2015 leads to a Con majority of 40 on the new boundaries
C 35.7%, L33.3% - Lab deprive Con of their majority by taking Broxtowe and Hucknall (projected maj 2,183)
C 34.4%, L34.6% - Lab become the largest party in terms of votes but are still 55 seats behind the Tories. They do pick up Ribble S (predicted maj 3,903)
C 32.2% L36.8% - Lab become the largest party in terms of seats (but are 40 short of a majority) by taking Northampton N (predicted maj 5,533). 3 prominent Con casualties are Rudd, Bojo and IDS (the latter two's seats have adverse boundary changes)
C 28.3% L40.7% - Lab match Tony's Blair's vote share in 2001but are still 6 short of a majority. Seats picked up include Cities of London and Westminster (maj 8,963) and Shrewsbury
C 27.9% L41.1% - Lab finally get a majority of 4 by picking up Gravesham (11,006)

It's striking how Lab would do much so worse now on a Blair style landslide vote. The main reasons for this are:

- The over-representation of Scotland has ended and that of Wales is going
- The loss of Scotland (even in the best scenario above Lab only pick up 2 seats from the SNP)
- The unwind of Lab/LD tactical voting
- Con vote is better distributed and Lab's is worse
- The South (outside London) is gaining electorate faster than other regions

So even if Corbyn goes, it looks very hard for Lab to win outright (they would probably need to run a minority government or coalition)

MarkSenior said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

With all the talk of Labour's problems, I thought it would be helpful to see just how bad their situation is on the proposed new boundaries (using Electoral Calculus). If I just move the Lab and Con scores and keep all the other parties the same then we get the follows:

C 37.8%, L 31.2% - the same result as 2015 leads to a Con majority of 40 on the new boundaries
C 35.7%, L33.3% - Lab deprive Con of their majority by taking Broxtowe and Hucknall (projected maj 2,183)
C 34.4%, L34.6% - Lab become the largest party in terms of votes but are still 55 seats behind the Tories. They do pick up Ribble S (predicted maj 3,903)
C 32.2% L36.8% - Lab become the largest party in terms of seats (but are 40 short of a majority) by taking Northampton N (predicted maj 5,533). 3 prominent Con casualties are Rudd, Bojo and IDS (the latter two's seats have adverse boundary changes)
C 28.3% L40.7% - Lab match Tony's Blair's vote share in 2001but are still 6 short of a majority. Seats picked up include Cities of London and Westminster (maj 8,963) and Shrewsbury
C 27.9% L41.1% - Lab finally get a majority of 4 by picking up Gravesham (11,006)

It's striking how Lab would do much so worse now on a Blair style landslide vote. The main reasons for this are:

- The over-representation of Scotland has ended and that of Wales is going
- The loss of Scotland (even in the best scenario above Lab only pick up 2 seats from the SNP)
- The unwind of Lab/LD tactical voting
- Con vote is better distributed and Lab's is worse
- The South (outside London) is gaining electorate faster than other regions

So even if Corbyn goes, it looks very hard for Lab to win outright (they would probably need to run a minority government or coalition)

The so far proposed new boundaries are not the new boundaries we will end up with . They are being reviewed and revised at the moment .

MarkSenior said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

With all the talk of Labour's problems, I thought it would be helpful to see just how bad their situation is on the proposed new boundaries (using Electoral Calculus). If I just move the Lab and Con scores and keep all the other parties the same then we get the follows:

C 37.8%, L 31.2% - the same result as 2015 leads to a Con majority of 40 on the new boundaries
C 35.7%, L33.3% - Lab deprive Con of their majority by taking Broxtowe and Hucknall (projected maj 2,183)
C 34.4%, L34.6% - Lab become the largest party in terms of votes but are still 55 seats behind the Tories. They do pick up Ribble S (predicted maj 3,903)
C 32.2% L36.8% - Lab become the largest party in terms of seats (but are 40 short of a majority) by taking Northampton N (predicted maj 5,533). 3 prominent Con casualties are Rudd, Bojo and IDS (the latter two's seats have adverse boundary changes)
C 28.3% L40.7% - Lab match Tony's Blair's vote share in 2001but are still 6 short of a majority. Seats picked up include Cities of London and Westminster (maj 8,963) and Shrewsbury
C 27.9% L41.1% - Lab finally get a majority of 4 by picking up Gravesham (11,006)

It's striking how Lab would do much so worse now on a Blair style landslide vote. The main reasons for this are:

- The over-representation of Scotland has ended and that of Wales is going
- The loss of Scotland (even in the best scenario above Lab only pick up 2 seats from the SNP)
- The unwind of Lab/LD tactical voting
- Con vote is better distributed and Lab's is worse
- The South (outside London) is gaining electorate faster than other regions

So even if Corbyn goes, it looks very hard for Lab to win outright (they would probably need to run a minority government or coalition)

The so far proposed new boundaries are not the new boundaries we will end up with . They are being reviewed and revised at the moment .

kle4 said:

MarkSenior said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

With all the talk of Labour's problems, I thought it would be helpful to see just how bad their situation is on the proposed new boundaries (using Electoral Calculus). If I just move the Lab and Con scores and keep all the other parties the same then we get the follows:

C 37.8%, L 31.2% - the same result as 2015 leads to a Con majority of 40 on the new boundaries
C 35.7%, L33.3% - Lab deprive Con of their majority by taking Broxtowe and Hucknall (projected maj 2,183)
C 34.4%, L34.6% - Lab become the largest party in terms of votes but are still 55 seats behind the Tories. They do pick up Ribble S (predicted maj 3,903)
C 32.2% L36.8% - Lab become the largest party in terms of seats (but are 40 short of a majority) by taking Northampton N (predicted maj 5,533). 3 prominent Con casualties are Rudd, Bojo and IDS (the latter two's seats have adverse boundary changes)
C 28.3% L40.7% - Lab match Tony's Blair's vote share in 2001but are still 6 short of a majority. Seats picked up include Cities of London and Westminster (maj 8,963) and Shrewsbury
C 27.9% L41.1% - Lab finally get a majority of 4 by picking up Gravesham (11,006)

It's striking how Lab would do much so worse now on a Blair style landslide vote. The main reasons for this are:

- The over-representation of Scotland has ended and that of Wales is going
- The loss of Scotland (even in the best scenario above Lab only pick up 2 seats from the SNP)
- The unwind of Lab/LD tactical voting
- Con vote is better distributed and Lab's is worse
- The South (outside London) is gaining electorate faster than other regions

So even if Corbyn goes, it looks very hard for Lab to win outright (they would probably need to run a minority government or coalition)

The so far proposed new boundaries are not the new boundaries we will end up with . They are being reviewed and revised at the moment .

Any idea yet when we'll see proposed revisions?

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

MarkSenior said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

With all the talk of Labour's problems, I thought it would be helpful to see just how bad their situation is on the proposed new boundaries (using Electoral Calculus). If I just move the Lab and Con scores and keep all the other parties the same then we get the follows:

C 37.8%, L 31.2% - the same result as 2015 leads to a Con majority of 40 on the new boundaries
C 35.7%, L33.3% - Lab deprive Con of their majority by taking Broxtowe and Hucknall (projected maj 2,183)
C 34.4%, L34.6% - Lab become the largest party in terms of votes but are still 55 seats behind the Tories. They do pick up Ribble S (predicted maj 3,903)
C 32.2% L36.8% - Lab become the largest party in terms of seats (but are 40 short of a majority) by taking Northampton N (predicted maj 5,533). 3 prominent Con casualties are Rudd, Bojo and IDS (the latter two's seats have adverse boundary changes)
C 28.3% L40.7% - Lab match Tony's Blair's vote share in 2001but are still 6 short of a majority. Seats picked up include Cities of London and Westminster (maj 8,963) and Shrewsbury
C 27.9% L41.1% - Lab finally get a majority of 4 by picking up Gravesham (11,006)

It's striking how Lab would do much so worse now on a Blair style landslide vote. The main reasons for this are:

- The over-representation of Scotland has ended and that of Wales is going
- The loss of Scotland (even in the best scenario above Lab only pick up 2 seats from the SNP)
- The unwind of Lab/LD tactical voting
- Con vote is better distributed and Lab's is worse
- The South (outside London) is gaining electorate faster than other regions

So even if Corbyn goes, it looks very hard for Lab to win outright (they would probably need to run a minority government or coalition)

The so far proposed new boundaries are not the new boundaries we will end up with . They are being reviewed and revised at the moment .

Any idea yet when we'll see proposed revisions?

In the spring the representations on the draft proposals will be published. There is then a period for further representations that lasts into the summer, I don't think we will see the revised proposals until much later in the year.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Roger said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Roger said:

It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.

Not acceptable !? Do I hear the sound of a petulant foot being stamped ?

You would have been quite happy with the threshold if Remain had won, and I dare say a 60% threshold would have been unacceptable if Leave won even so.

It's difficult to argue logically against accepting the will of the majority other than by giving examples of its unacceptable face. In Saudi Arabia public executions attract a bigger crowd than football matches and it's a show for the whole family. You might argue that Saudis are uncivilized but following your logic that isn't an issue. Homosexuality is illegal and I daresay its illegality would be the will of the people if they were asked.

I think the problem there is that democracy and religious fundamentalism (of any stripe) are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Roger said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Roger said:

It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.

Not acceptable !? Do I hear the sound of a petulant foot being stamped ?

You would have been quite happy with the threshold if Remain had won, and I dare say a 60% threshold would have been unacceptable if Leave won even so.

It's difficult to argue logically against accepting the will of the majority other than by giving examples of its unacceptable face. In Saudi Arabia public executions attract a bigger crowd than football matches and it's a show for the whole family. You might argue that Saudis are uncivilized but following your logic that isn't an issue. Homosexuality is illegal and I daresay its illegality would be the will of the people if they were asked.

I think the problem there is that democracy and religious fundamentalism (of any stripe) are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts.

Democracy merely means rule by the people. If the people choose religious fanatics, what are you to do?

Or do we say that certain rights are inalieable, and a majority cannot wish them away?

matt said:

Toms said:

A semi-sequitur from of the previous thread :
I think JK Rowling is fantastic.

Her books have made children read - although to an adult eye they could do with some editing, to a child more is frequently more. Although the less said about her foray into adult literature the better - that wore her political views on its sleeve and was perhaps unhelpful to its success. That's what I mean about success corrupting her writing approach.

Sean_F said:

matt said:

Toms said:

A semi-sequitur from of the previous thread :
I think JK Rowling is fantastic.

Her books have made children read - although to an adult eye they could do with some editing, to a child more is frequently more. Although the less said about her foray into adult literature the better - that wore her political views on its sleeve and was perhaps unhelpful to its success. That's what I mean about success corrupting her writing approach.

The first three Harry Potters are classics of childrens' literature. The remaining four have good bits, but suffer from bloat.

scotslass said:

Is it too late for Sturgeon to field a candidate in Stoke? The Scot Nats would probably win it.

Ishmael_Z said:

Sean_F said:

matt said:

Toms said:

A semi-sequitur from of the previous thread :
I think JK Rowling is fantastic.

Her books have made children read - although to an adult eye they could do with some editing, to a child more is frequently more. Although the less said about her foray into adult literature the better - that wore her political views on its sleeve and was perhaps unhelpful to its success. That's what I mean about success corrupting her writing approach.

The first three Harry Potters are classics of childrens' literature. The remaining four have good bits, but suffer from bloat.

Really? I read the first one pretty much as it came out, and came up with one of my greatest predictions, which was: this will never catch on, derivative snobbery derived from Billy Bunter and Enid Blyton, with a dash of C.S.Lewis thrown in. In particular the inherited wealth and public school motifs seemed at odds with zeitgeist, what with New Labour sweeping the board at a G.E. And I still think I was right, except for the not catching on bit.

SeanT said:

Serious question: will Brexit have any serious negative effect on the British economy AT ALL?

The fall in sterling aside, and a slight rise in inflation (both arguably desirable) I can't see ANYTHING.

Yes yes I know, we've not Brexited yet. But the lack of apocalypse is still really quite striking.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Roger said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Roger said:

It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.

Not acceptable !? Do I hear the sound of a petulant foot being stamped ?

You would have been quite happy with the threshold if Remain had won, and I dare say a 60% threshold would have been unacceptable if Leave won even so.

It's difficult to argue logically against accepting the will of the majority other than by giving examples of its unacceptable face. In Saudi Arabia public executions attract a bigger crowd than football matches and it's a show for the whole family. You might argue that Saudis are uncivilized but following your logic that isn't an issue. Homosexuality is illegal and I daresay its illegality would be the will of the people if they were asked.

I think the problem there is that democracy and religious fundamentalism (of any stripe) are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts.

Religious fundamentalists may well believe they have a right (and duty) to govern, regardless of the will of the majority. But, they may also contest and win elections, and govern in line with the will of the majority (eg Iran).

It's a thorny question, to what extent are majorities allowed to impose oppressive laws on minorities.

Fortunately, it doesn't arise in the case of Brexit (regardless of whether one is in favour or not). Nobody is being oppressed.

Casino_Royale said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

With all the talk of Labour's problems, I thought it would be helpful to see just how bad their situation is on the proposed new boundaries (using Electoral Calculus). If I just move the Lab and Con scores and keep all the other parties the same then we get the follows:

C 37.8%, L 31.2% - the same result as 2015 leads to a Con majority of 40 on the new boundaries
C 35.7%, L33.3% - Lab deprive Con of their majority by taking Broxtowe and Hucknall (projected maj 2,183)
C 34.4%, L34.6% - Lab become the largest party in terms of votes but are still 55 seats behind the Tories. They do pick up Ribble S (predicted maj 3,903)
C 32.2% L36.8% - Lab become the largest party in terms of seats (but are 40 short of a majority) by taking Northampton N (predicted maj 5,533). 3 prominent Con casualties are Rudd, Bojo and IDS (the latter two's seats have adverse boundary changes)
C 28.3% L40.7% - Lab match Tony's Blair's vote share in 2001but are still 6 short of a majority. Seats picked up include Cities of London and Westminster (maj 8,963) and Shrewsbury
C 27.9% L41.1% - Lab finally get a majority of 4 by picking up Gravesham (11,006)

It's striking how Lab would do much so worse now on a Blair style landslide vote. The main reasons for this are:

- The over-representation of Scotland has ended and that of Wales is going
- The loss of Scotland (even in the best scenario above Lab only pick up 2 seats from the SNP)
- The unwind of Lab/LD tactical voting
- Con vote is better distributed and Lab's is worse
- The South (outside London) is gaining electorate faster than other regions

So even if Corbyn goes, it looks very hard for Lab to win outright (they would probably need to run a minority government or coalition)

It looks impossible, until it isn't.

Angela Merkel was a dead cert a month ago.

SeanT said:

Serious question: will Brexit have any serious negative effect on the British economy AT ALL?

The fall in sterling aside, and a slight rise in inflation (both arguably desirable) I can't see ANYTHING.

Yes yes I know, we've not Brexited yet. But the lack of apocalypse is still really quite striking.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Roger said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Roger said:

It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.

Not acceptable !? Do I hear the sound of a petulant foot being stamped ?

You would have been quite happy with the threshold if Remain had won, and I dare say a 60% threshold would have been unacceptable if Leave won even so.

It's difficult to argue logically against accepting the will of the majority other than by giving examples of its unacceptable face. In Saudi Arabia public executions attract a bigger crowd than football matches and it's a show for the whole family. You might argue that Saudis are uncivilized but following your logic that isn't an issue. Homosexuality is illegal and I daresay its illegality would be the will of the people if they were asked.

I think the problem there is that democracy and religious fundamentalism (of any stripe) are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts.

Democracy merely means rule by the people. If the people choose religious fanatics, what are you to do?

Or do we say that certain rights are inalieable, and a majority cannot wish them away?

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Sean_F said:

matt said:

Toms said:

A semi-sequitur from of the previous thread :
I think JK Rowling is fantastic.

Her books have made children read - although to an adult eye they could do with some editing, to a child more is frequently more. Although the less said about her foray into adult literature the better - that wore her political views on its sleeve and was perhaps unhelpful to its success. That's what I mean about success corrupting her writing approach.

The first three Harry Potters are classics of childrens' literature. The remaining four have good bits, but suffer from bloat.

Really? I read the first one pretty much as it came out, and came up with one of my greatest predictions, which was: this will never catch on, derivative snobbery derived from Billy Bunter and Enid Blyton, with a dash of C.S.Lewis thrown in. In particular the inherited wealth and public school motifs seemed at odds with zeitgeist, what with New Labour sweeping the board at a G.E. And I still think I was right, except for the not catching on bit.

Being at odds with the zeitgeist may have helped (ironically, given Rowling's political views). There's nothing wrong with being compared to CS Lewis or Enid Blyton, and most authors would be delighted to be as successful.

I can understand why the books were popular. I can't understand why they were * so popular* (450 m sales). I certainly wouldn't rate her above authors like Ursula Le Guin, Dianne Wynne Jones, Rosemary Sutcliffe, Alan Garner, who sold in the millions, but not the hundreds of millions.