politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The ten seats most likely to be affected by immigration

FPT
I may be turning into an old fuddy duddy but I still prefer women without beards.

According to the ST yesterday the BoE is going to increase its growth forecast again this week to 3.5% and implicitly suggest that the first interest rate rises will be in Q1 of 2015. This is the longest run of increases in growth forecasts since 1997. I still think that Q4 of this year for the first modest rise is more likely and politically easier as well.

Many economists seem to have assumed that the UK economy would slow down a bit in the second half of this year. It appears the Bank does not agree. We will also get yet more good news on unemployment this week as well.

Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess? As the economic results move from good to excellent surely some credit will accrue? There is not a lot of evidence of this so far but the Labour vote is starting to soften which gives some hope.

[Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess?]

Yes

JBriskin said:

[Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess?]

Yes

Because the "stunning results" have benefitted so few. Whether it is still possible, in to-day's globalised economy, to spread them out in the way that social democracy (and indeed Tory "wets") sought to do in the second half of the last century is another question, of course.

Innocent Abroad - Can we not allow the "stunning results" time to filter through? It really does feel like MTV attention span generation time.

Two London seats where it is likely to be important from opposite ends of the spectrum: Brent Central and Eltham.

Innocent_Abroad said:

JBriskin said:

[Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess?]

Yes

Because the "stunning results" have benefitted so few. Whether it is still possible, in to-day's globalised economy, to spread them out in the way that social democracy (and indeed Tory "wets") sought to do in the second half of the last century is another question, of course.

I think the fact that the early elements of the recovery did not in fact benefit the man in the street whose wages were, on average, still falling in real terms is the best explanation of the lack of traction to date. There may be more than another million in employment but that does not really help the 30m who already had a job.

If so there is still hope for the tories because this year will see increases in real earnings along with an increase in the value of most peoples' houses making them feel better off. As a country we still need to rebalance away from consumption and increase investment and production which means there is less of the growth available for joe public than would otherwise be the case but this year at least there should be some jam for all.

The Luton seats might be interesting as I believe a lot of the 'new' migrants are coming in to that already diverse area.

Balance of payments is so passé Nick. I would mention 10K tax free but presumably you already know.

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess? As the economic results move from good to excellent surely some credit will accrue? There is not a lot of evidence of this so far but the Labour vote is starting to soften which gives some hope.

Labour's vote, like the other parties, is being gnawed at by UKIP, but that's nothing to do with any economic success. Leaving aside the bits we won't agree on, the problem is that economic revival is fuelling the "Tories only care about the rich" view, since most people don't feel that things are getting much easier for them, yet apparently the economy is doing better, so who is benefiting? "Ah, it's the super-rich who got that tax cut." It's easier to bear austerity if it's seen to be essential and shared. And a great deal of the austerity cuts have been punted into the next Parliament.

A more sophisticated point is that it's not clear that the recovery is being achieved sustainably, as evidenced by the balance of payments: arguably, it's principally built on credit and consumer borrowing.

Trade figures are volatile but there is a clear trend that our deficit is at least reducing and the last figures were particularly good. The fact we are achieving this despite growing faster than most of our trading partners is something of an achievement and, unfortunately, reflects the increase in competitiveness achieved by the cuts in real wages.

This growth, after an uncertain beginning, is now looking very healthy with manufacturing benefiting significantly. And, as you know, the super rich paraded in all their glory yesterday in the ST are paying more tax and a greater share of the tax than ever. Labour are going to need some new tunes as this year progresses.

JBriskin said:

*anecdote alert*

When I've temped and a pole got there before me I didn't mind (at least I had got in and no-one has ever accused them of incompetence). When he happened to sit beside me at lunch time and someone accused him of quisling-ing I must say it was eye opening.

Presumably because of the misuse of the word "Quisling"?

Charles - Yeah, things like that I'm sure.

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess? As the economic results move from good to excellent surely some credit will accrue? There is not a lot of evidence of this so far but the Labour vote is starting to soften which gives some hope.

Labour's vote, like the other parties, is being gnawed at by UKIP, but that's nothing to do with any economic success. Leaving aside the bits we won't agree on, the problem is that economic revival is fuelling the "Tories only care about the rich" view, since most people don't feel that things are getting much easier for them, yet apparently the economy is doing better, so who is benefiting? "Ah, it's the super-rich who got that tax cut." It's easier to bear austerity if it's seen to be essential and shared. And a great deal of the austerity cuts have been punted into the next Parliament.

A more sophisticated point is that it's not clear that the recovery is being achieved sustainably, as evidenced by the balance of payments: arguably, it's principally built on credit and consumer borrowing.

Trade figures are volatile but there is a clear trend that our deficit is at least reducing and the last figures were particularly good. The fact we are achieving this despite growing faster than most of our trading partners is something of an achievement and, unfortunately, reflects the increase in competitiveness achieved by the cuts in real wages.

This growth, after an uncertain beginning, is now looking very healthy with manufacturing benefiting significantly. And, as you know, the super rich paraded in all their glory yesterday in the ST are paying more tax and a greater share of the tax than ever. Labour are going to need some new tunes as this year progresses.

A LibDem told me that that's what his Party have achieved in this Parliament. I take it he's wrong, and that the Tories should indeed take the credit? (I'm only asking...)

FPT


The campaign for Scottish independence is being funded almost solely by two lottery winners, and has received far fewer small donations than the No campaign.

Yes Scotland finally revealed its accounts following months of sustained pressure and speculation that it was struggling to secure financial support. They show that Colin and Chris Weir, who won £161 million in a Euromillions draw, have donated £2.5 million since April last year, on top of another £1  million previously. It means that the couple, from Ayrshire, have supplied the campaign with almost 80 per cent of its cash.

The books also show that Yes Scotland is struggling to secure as many small donations as might be expected, given its perceived strong grassroots support.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4086555.ece

Usual rubbish from Scott , only able to promote lies and London propaganda.

If you look at the crowdfunding by YES groups they are miles ahead of Better Together. Even if you look at the donations you will see people give more to YES and if you add that they only accept money from people who CAN vote in the referendum you may realise that most of the NO money comes from outside Scotland. Therefore they are doing poorly from a pool of 65 million compared to the YES pool of 5 million.
Finally no criminals from outside Scotland or dirty money can be donated to YES, NO will accept anything no questions asked.

OGH - Bristol South?

Easterross said:

Immigration is not an issue in Scotland where the minority community has always been far more integrated. We also have had a long established group of communities from Central and Eastern Europe as a throwback from the end of WWII and Stalin's policy of murdering those who returned.

Scotland is still too busy with sectarianism to have got round to racism.

malcolmg said:

If you look at the crowdfunding by YES groups they are miles ahead of Better Together.

Very true.
I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500 in less than 24 hrs. I'm sure James (if he wasn't banned) would like to thank all the PBers who still peruse his site for their no doubt substantial donations.

TGOHF said:

So two fatties that dont work and got money from a British institution are bankrolling the YES campaign - how apt.

So an employer of war criminals and sanction buster who doesn't live in Scotland is bankrolling the NO campaign - how apt.

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JBriskin said:

[Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess?]

Yes

Because the "stunning results" have benefitted so few. Whether it is still possible, in to-day's globalised economy, to spread them out in the way that social democracy (and indeed Tory "wets") sought to do in the second half of the last century is another question, of course.

I think the fact that the early elements of the recovery did not in fact benefit the man in the street whose wages were, on average, still falling in real terms is the best explanation of the lack of traction to date. There may be more than another million in employment but that does not really help the 30m who already had a job.

If so there is still hope for the tories because this year will see increases in real earnings along with an increase in the value of most peoples' houses making them feel better off. As a country we still need to rebalance away from consumption and increase investment and production which means there is less of the growth available for joe public than would otherwise be the case but this year at least there should be some jam for all.

This government's performance on debt, productivity, industrial output and the trade balance certainly is stunning - stunningly bad.

It should be remembered that Osborne will miss his targets on growth, debt, unemployment and inflation that he made in his first budget.

And the government babbling on about growth wont help them if the benefits that brings are concentrated in groups other than swing voters.

The point in real earnings increasing is a good one. Compare how real earnings were increasing in the month before previous elections:

Average annual earnings increases:

1983 May 8.9%
1987 May 8.6%
1992 Mar 9.1%
1997 Apr 4.0%

RPI annual increase

1983 May 3.7%
1987 May 4.1%
1992 Mar 4.0%
1997 Apr 2.4%

Notice how well people were doing before the 1992 election, I think it helps explain the 'surprise' Conservative victory. Likewise notice how little real earnings were increasing by in 1997.

The economy was in excellent shape in 1997, certainly far better than in 1992, but people weren't benefiting and so the Conservatives didn't benefit.

Now remember that currently RPI is higher than annual earnings increases.

So who's getting the benefit of this 'growth' we keep getting told about ?

If swing voters don't think they are then they're going to feel cheated.

Pulpstar said:

Banned by Baldyfred !

I've been put on the naughty step by Stan James. They haven't exactly banned me, but they don't seem to want to take my money.

James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers

Opinium poll for Mail today has Euro elections too close to call: Ukip 28 Lab 27 Con 23 Lib Dem 8

[So who's getting the benefit of this 'growth' we keep getting told about ?]

Yeah, let's just get rid of this GDP thing the news sometimes talks about and vote green.

TGOHF said:

So two fatties that dont work and got money from a British institution are bankrolling the YES campaign - how apt.

European, actually.

No_Offence_Alan said:

Easterross said:

Immigration is not an issue in Scotland where the minority community has always been far more integrated. We also have had a long established group of communities from Central and Eastern Europe as a throwback from the end of WWII and Stalin's policy of murdering those who returned.

Scotland is still too busy with sectarianism to have got round to racism.

No, Easterross is quite right. (There were also Polish and Italian incomers before the war in specific areas - e.g. coal mining and catering respectively.)

In any case, that sectarianism DID arise in large part from (Irish) immigration in the first place. It is still a phenomenon in the West Central Belt but is not popular in general. Indeed, its decline is one aspect of the changes in Scottish society since the 1950s which led also to the collapse of the Tory vote, with which one form of sectarianism was strongly associated at the time. The name of the party, the Conservative and Unionist Party, is indeed a fossil relic of that era, as the Unionist refers to union with Ireland. But I certainly don't get any sense that the current Tories are sectarian in that sense (except insofar as someone of that mindset would probably be anti-indy and vote for the Tories for want of anything more specific).

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Richard, worth recalling there was a eurozone sovereign debt crisis. However, the emphasis on growth over all else by the media and, following that, the political class, does seem unhealthy.

Mr. Antifrank, I suspect they're more concerned about you taking their money.

NickPalmer said:

O/T: Does anyone knows anything about Vietnamese health care? I have to go there tomorrow for work for 4 days, and irritatingly have got what seems to be tonsillitis (painful to swallow on one side). It's been hanging around for a few days so I'm now on an antibiotic and I expect it'll clear up. But if it got worse I'd potentially not be able to eat and drink and might need attention. Presumably the hotel will know a doctor, but any particular tips?

Make sure it isn't a quinsy before you travel.

TGOHF said:

So two fatties that dont work and got money from a British institution are bankrolling the YES campaign - how apt.

The husband (at least) was IIRC a professional cameraman.

Would you rather he kept on working and deprived someone else of a job?

What would you have said if they had given money to the no campaign?

foxinsoxuk said:

The Page Hall area of Sheffield has had even Nick Clegg commenting on Roma migration.

Is it in Sheffield Central? or Sheffield Hillsborough and Brightside? Also an interesting area to see if UKIP really are making inroads into a historically Labour area.

Page Hall Road is Brightside and Hillsborough.

But the impact and worry is being felt all across Sheffield.

Won't have much impact. If Lab were reduced to 50 MPs, Brightside and Hillsborough would be one of the 50.

JosiasJessop said:

It's why I was totally unfussed by J.K. Rowling giving a million to the Labour Party before the last election.

I'm sure that's a big relief to her.

Great Yarmouth seems to fit Mike's criteria as a suggestion.

Theuniondivvie said:

I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500

So crowd sourcing raised 0.1% of the funding compared to a single Lottery win donation.

Wow, that really does refute the claim in the article that the Lottery winners are funding 80% of the campaign.

Oh, wait...

I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP

Theuniondivvie said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's why I was totally unfussed by J.K. Rowling giving a million to the Labour Party before the last election.

I'm sure that's a big relief to her.

It should be of absolutely no bother to her at all. It was just a well-known example of someone giving a substantial sum to a political party. And one, sad to say, some objected to.

However, I should have added that the individual should get no direct gain from any donation.

It's rumoured that Greater Harpenden has had an immigrant influx of a single oligarch from Bedford and that has touched a nerve.

Apparently this weird and exotic outsider has a bearded wife, poses in an organic knitted seaweed thong and produces Austrian p0rn films classics such as "Rise like A Penis"

Well, I ask you it's all very well in the fleshpots of Bedford but the denizens of North Hertfordshire haven't seen such wide eyed and brazen behaviour since the Mayors wife flashed a shapely ankle at the Town VE Day celebrations in May 1945.

Scott_P said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500

So crowd sourcing raised 0.1% of the funding compared to a single Lottery win donation.

Wow, that really does refute the claim in the article that the Lottery winners are funding 80% of the campaign.

Oh, wait...

I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP

In what sense is it supposed to be a refutation of your tedious regurgitations?
As it happens crowdfunding has raised over £300k for Yes causes. What's the total for No?

Sorry to give you language and maths lessons this early in the morning.

MonikerDiCanio said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T: Does anyone knows anything about Vietnamese health care? I have to go there tomorrow for work for 4 days, and irritatingly have got what seems to be tonsillitis (painful to swallow on one side). It's been hanging around for a few days so I'm now on an antibiotic and I expect it'll clear up. But if it got worse I'd potentially not be able to eat and drink and might need attention. Presumably the hotel will know a doctor, but any particular tips?

Make sure it isn't a quinsy before you travel.

Thanks, Moniker.

JosiasJessop said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JBriskin said:

[Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess?]

Yes

Because the "stunning results" have benefitted so few. Whether it is still possible, in to-day's globalised economy, to spread them out in the way that social democracy (and indeed Tory "wets") sought to do in the second half of the last century is another question, of course.

I think the fact that the early elements of the recovery did not in fact benefit the man in the street whose wages were, on average, still falling in real terms is the best explanation of the lack of traction to date. There may be more than another million in employment but that does not really help the 30m who already had a job.

If so there is still hope for the tories because this year will see increases in real earnings along with an increase in the value of most peoples' houses making them feel better off. As a country we still need to rebalance away from consumption and increase investment and production which means there is less of the growth available for joe public than would otherwise be the case but this year at least there should be some jam for all.

(snip)

Average annual earnings increases:

1983 May 8.9%
1987 May 8.6%
1992 Mar 9.1%
1997 Apr 4.0%

RPI annual increase

1983 May 3.7%
1987 May 4.1%
1992 Mar 4.0%
1997 Apr 2.4%

(snip)

Care to fill in the equivalent data for 1979, 2001, 2005 and 2010?

1979
Earnings +15.9%
RPI +10.1%

Real earnings rising fast - perhaps connected with all those pay strikes - and helps explain why Labour lost so few votes compared with 1974 despite the disasters of the previous five years.

2001
Earnings +5.8%
RPI +1.8%

Solid growth in real earnings underpins easy Labour reelection

2005
Earnings +4.4%
RPI +3.2%

Weak earnings growth and big fall in Labour vote

2010
Earnings +0.4% but had been +6.7% the month before, a very variable year.
RPI +5.3%

Ouch! Labour vote disintegrates. Public sector earnings though were still increasing at over 3% during the recession and leading up to the general election, which helps to explain how well Labour did among them.

Of course each election varies and there are numerous factors but real earnings growth is something the average voter personally experiences much more than most economic stats.

Good Morning @Conchita_the_Punter

@JackW

And madainn mhath to you too, young Jack.

Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection Countdown :

1 day 1 minute 1 second

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_P said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500

So crowd sourcing raised 0.1% of the funding compared to a single Lottery win donation.

Wow, that really does refute the claim in the article that the Lottery winners are funding 80% of the campaign.

Oh, wait...

I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP

In what sense is it supposed to be a refutation of your tedious regurgitations?
As it happens crowdfunding has raised over £300k for Yes causes. What's the total for No?

Sorry to give you language and maths lessons this early in the morning.

Going to clarify your "war criminals" comment? Wouldn't want to get OGH into trouble.....

Ok, for clarity, Bettertogether's SECOND largest donor (formerly largest) is an employer of war criminals and sanction buster.

You missed a bit:

Ms Baillie also pointed out that Mr Taylor had made important investments in the Harris tweed industry on the Western Isles, a constituency represented at Holyrood and Westminster by the SNP.

"Is the first minister equally suggesting that Mr Taylor should disinvest from Harris tweed?" she said. "I don't think he's said that today."

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie also defended the use of Mr Taylor's money.

He said: "If it's good enough for Harris tweed, it should be good enough for Better Together."

@MSmithsonPB: New SkyNews YouGov Euros poll
Ukip 31
LAB 25
CON 23
LD 9
http://t.co/n57mF1HnaM

@JackW

Cheeky boy!

You know the only beard I have is the betting kind. Now off you go and work on your ARSE.

Can MalcolmG please translate Carnyx's Scottish sectarianism paragraph for me into English.

Thanks

JosiasJessop said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's why I was totally unfussed by J.K. Rowling giving a million to the Labour Party before the last election.

I'm sure that's a big relief to her.

It should be of absolutely no bother to her at all. It was just a well-known example of someone giving a substantial sum to a political party. And one, sad to say, some objected to.

However, I should have added that the individual should get no direct gain from any donation.

I heard she's been lobbying for measures to protect indigenous authors. Apparently, a flood of cheap literature, written by foreigners, is depressing the wage rates of British authors.

Foreign books must therefore be banned.

JackW said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@JackW

And madainn mhath to you too, young Jack.

Even before your inevitable triumph I sold all shares in Wilkinson Sword .... even Mrs JackW is thinking of sporting a full set !!

Titters .... She's away .....

She's not away in Stockholm is she?! :')

Peter_the_Punter said:

@JackW

Cheeky boy!

You know the only beard I have is the betting kind. Now off you go and work on your ARSE.

Apparently Russia and Belorussia blocked Conchita's live performance and according to some Russian politicians western Europe is full of decadence.

I do hope so !!

DavidL said:

On topic I really can't help with this but I would make one observation that might be worth some debate: I can pretty much guarantee than none of your 10 seats will be in Scotland.

Immigration really is not an issue up here at all. Even in the central belt there is nothing like the sort of pressures and congestion that I see in my trips south. In this respect at least we are indeed a different country.

Although I'd guess it would become an issue in southern England in the wake of a Yes vote?

As a fan of the site I think it's great that OGH is going to be at the House of Commons.

Do we think Cameron still reads it or was that all just a bit of nonsense spin??

@JackW

Sweetie, nobody has ever blocked one of my live performances.....

Mr. Eagles, it wasn't a Eurovision thread, was it?