politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Local Elections 2018 : By-Elections Review and Forecast
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Local Elections 2018 : By-Elections Review and Forecast
Since the local elections in 2014 in London, there have been a total of 75 by-elections to the 32 councils in the capital and overall those by-elections have shown that the mainstream parties are clawing back support from the smaller parties.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRgHSxWnhqk
Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.
I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.
On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.
BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.
HARROW: - Likely Lab Hold. Can't see the CON being strong enough to break the majority.
HAVERING: - Unless the independents choose not to stand, I can't see a CON majority here. The NOC will continue.
HILLINGDON: Likely LAB gain. The poor results for both Nick Hurd and Boris Johnson are backed up by some quite tight Ward contests. A relatively small swing changes a lot of seats so I could see LAB gaining this Borough.
KENSINGTON & CHELSEA: Likely CON Hold - the likelihood of the anti-CON vote splitting between LAB, LDs and this new group gives CON a chance of holding on.
KINGSTON: Likely LD Gain. Ed Davey convincingly re-gained K&S in June and on that basis the LDs can be fancied to regain the Borough. LAB can never be ruled out in Norbiton.
SUTTON: Toss up between CON gain and LD hold: while you might think the LDs are secure in their suburban fortress which they have run for over 30 years, I'm less confident. The Sutton & Cheam area is firmly back in the blue camp and there will no doubt be a lot of effort to try and win seats like Wallington North and South and others in Tom Brake's constituency.
WANDSWORTH: Toss up between CON hold and LAB gain: The loss of Battersea was a big blow for the Conservatives and Putney is far from safe for Justine Greening. The Thamesfield by-election was in the safest Ward in the Borough and while a Labour takeover is a long shot, it's not inconceivable.
WESTMINSTER: Toss up between CON hold and LAB gain: This would be the shock of the night but it's not inconceivable. The GE result makes Mark Field's seat a marginal and Labour has always had strength in parts of the Borough. Unlikely but not impossible.
Cheers for this, Mr. Hayfield.
Mr. P, sounds a bit like Madame Hydra.
It may well be the LDs who have the most to celebrate in May if they do indeed gain Richmond Upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames from the Tories as forecast above. They may also do well outside London too e.g. if they can capitalise on opposition to local plans in the Home Counties councils up for election next year
https://twitter.com/poundland/status/943813601751699458
Cue for incoming rants.
Whether you want to hear it or not is a different matter.
London has an educated, younger and ethnically and internationally diverse population. The Tories are presiding over Brexit and the housing crisis. And Labour has a massive activist base.
That's all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/943835276266426368
There's a couple of crackers on Poundlands social media, including the elf having a light saber fight with a dildo.
To take one example, Owen Jones claims that the 'core Tory project' of 'individualism' (which he's invented) erodes a sense that the majority have shared interests and aspirations. Clearly he's never read anything David Cameron ever wrote, or any of Theresa May's speeches, or indeed Maggie Thatcher's very famous Women's Own interview:
There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689
The Tories also won 2/3 of the seats in Hillingdon in June. Labour have an outside chance in Wandsworth and Westminster but need to gain more thsn 10 seats in both boroughs to won control which is probably too big an ask
- Ayn Rand
Instead the Tories just need to defend boroughs like Wandsworth and Westminster which even Thatcher and Major held at the height of the poll tax backlash or the arrival of New Labour. If the Tories do lose councils they are more likely to be losing them to the LDs than Labour
Is the delayed election for the greater Sheffield (now less than it was planned to be) mayor still going ahead in May 2018?
The most interesting thing in that is the suggestion, asserted as fact, that the majority think like Labour and the Conservatives are there for a minority.
Also, inequality isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. What matters is that the poorest have the basic necessities of life. That's why a fixation on inequality or the ever-shifting bullshit goalposts of 'relative poverty' (a statistical perversion invented so that poverty will apparently exist even when everybody has enough money for all life's necessities and luxuries on top) is a nonsense.
The inference that the wealthy have done something wrong due to a 'rigged system' or for having the temerity to be born into a wealthy family is an infantile appeal to envy. Not doing well? Blame those rich bastards. They're cheats, you know. None of them got there on merit (of course, some do just inherit a fortune, but most people work for their money).
And look at socialism, and it's record. Or look at it in action right now. Venezuela, where everyone's losing weight due to starving to death, and the opposition has been banned from the next election. Mmm, socialist.
Until the Conservative party is seen to be on the side of people earning between £26-45k and ensuring people who have that level of income can afford to buy or eventually buy their own flat/house then London is not going to vote for us. I've only been saying it for 10 years.
The man who deliberately drove a car into a crowd in Melbourne is a drug user with mental health issues but no known terrorism links, police say. The Australian citizen of Afghan descent was taken into custody after a struggle at the scene of the incident.
A second man, 24, was arrested after being seen filming the incident. He had a bag of knives with him, police added.
Yet in terms of the borough elections next year the Tories are only defending 9 out of the 32 boroughs up for election so there is every chance they can defend most if not all of those especially with national polling still almost neck and neck.
I didn’t think he was inferring that the wealthy had done something wrong by being wealthy per se, but that society is structured in their favour.
I’m not with you on inequality - I think a socially cohesive society is best achieved by to attempting reduce inequality.
I don’t agree with what’s going on in Venezuela. But in terms of socialism in this country, while I’m not a socialist myself - and I don’t agree with Corbynism - when I look at the Attlee and Wilson governments, for example I think they had more of a positive rather than a negative impact on society.
The big question is whether the LAB and CON votes which turned out so strongly in June at the GE will do the same at next year's locals. So far, based on the few by-elections there have been since June, the LAB vote in LAB seats has turned out strongly but that might not be the case everywhere.
Barnet is such a tightly-fought borough a change of one or two seats elsewhere is entirely possible.
Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster all saw swings away from the Conservatives in June - now, LAB need more to take control and I agree it's a big ask but a strong LAB turnout and a weak CON turnout could deliver a number of changes.
My fellow LDs will castigate me for my fears about Sutton but after 30 years in charge there may be a vote for change but for many years the local Conservatives were spectacularly inept and in 1994 I well remember the CON seats falling to 3 along with LAB at the time.
The truth is change happens less often than we think and if I were a betting man (come on Shadsy, put up some London Borough markets !!) I'd make CON firm favourites to hold all their existing boroughs except Barnet, Kingston and Richmond. My other caveat is K&C - IF the anti-CON vote can coalesce around a single list of candidates, I believe we could see the Conservatives lose control but if the Opposition (both parties and locally-based groups) all stand, the Conservatives will survive.
The fact is the Labour position in London has strengthened since 2014 and while I'd be pushed to say the CON position has declined since 2014 the strengthening of the LAB position will have an impact.
Some more hard data for you:
2017 national swing to Con to Lab 2.1%
Hendon swing to Labour 2.7%
Chipping Barnet swing to Labour 6.9%
Finchley & GG swing to Labour 4.0%
My personal alarm bell was triggered in the wake of Grenfell when I heard calls from some Momentum-ites for expropriation of private property - a sign of things to come.
Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.
Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*
*Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/943789914428268545
The best kind of government is one that helps people to help themselves. Lighting the way, rather than pushing people down the path.
Without the Jewish vote the Tories would likely have lost all 3 seats.
I also think Iain Martin misses the point - socialists like Jones (at least from that snapshot of his article anyway) are not talking about liberating the individual - they disagree with the idea of individualism in the first place and view things in terms of the collective. Now that has its own flaws too, but Martin appears to be applying his own political aims/perspective to Jones, which I think doesn’t quite work.
I’m not surprised re you not minding paying more tax.
There is nothing wrong with trying to change matters so that those who put the most effort in are properly rewarded and that each generation is given fair opportunities to succeed. What those of us who are opposed to Corbyn-style economics and politics are concerned about is that any fair society must have proper regard for individual rights, that the collective, the state should not be used to override individuals' rights to live their lives, own property, look after themselves and their families as they see fit and that people like him appear to have little regard for such principles.
Society is made up of the little platoons who do so much to make life for individuals and groups, free associations of people, worthwhile. Those who think that only the state, in the person of bureaucrats, can provide any worthwhile help are mistaken and can end up being oppressive and authoritarian. As ever, finding the right balance is key. Owen Jones is far too simplistic, both in his analysis and his answers.
Result: The project has been kicked into the long grass, as it's no longer economic. The owners prefer to wait until there's a more sensible mayor. They can let the site out for industrial use in the meantime.
Edited extra bit: the bleating refers to Jones, not yourself, of course.
https://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/
Well, if anyone wants to redistribute monies to a deserving cause (me) and also acquire much mirth for themselves...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Kingdom-Thaddeus-White-ebook/dp/B0757PMR7F/
While I don’t think *only* the state can provide worthwhile help, I’d look to it more to play a role in reducing inequality more than the private sector.
Re Corbynomics, yeah I’m not here to advocate for that. I posted the tweet more because of Jones’ specific analysis of individualism which caught my eye, rather than a great sympathy with his entire philosophy on life and his support for Corbyn.
Another case where evidence wasn't promptly shared?
https://twitter.com/CarolineGruyter/status/943863471929741312
Ayn Rand was of course, a writer of pulpy fiction as a vehicle for cod-philosophy and she was never one to shy away from hyperbole.
However, I can't help but feel Roark's speech on the individual vs the collective is the first thing that comes to mind when reading Owen Jones' article.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthefountainhead.html
Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man's "inalienable rights." It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.
Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy.
We are entering an era where the old bargain of - it's ok for the rich to get richer as long as it benefits the rest of us too - is breaking down. Neo-liberalism, trickle down, etc, are all discredited. But what worries me is that instead of seeking new answers many are turning to hard-left dogma that has been proven not merely to impoverish, but has seen millions killed, murdered, starved in its name. And make no mistake - that is where "collectivism" leads us.
Am I happy with the rising disparity between rich and poor? No. Is collectivism of the kind I hear some in Momentum crying for the answer - history gives a resounding no, and I believe that is Iain Martin's point.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever
- Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region
- in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10%
- Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May)
- Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics:
- median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age
- by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority
- 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals