politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Locals 2014: Some of the highlights on a fast moving night

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Oliver_PB said:

MaxPB said:

They need London specific policy of the same kind that gets Boris elected.

I'd be careful about that. Any party announcing London specific policies will be very negatively received elsewhere in the country.

I think stuff specific to lower paid workers and housing costs would not be controversial, pretty much everyone in the country realises that London is not like the rest of the country and having the minimum wage set to £7.20 per hour and spending some government money to allow middle and lower income people onto the housing ladder in London is not going to be a big problem. Any talk of different tax rates or allowing London to keep some of its huge tax surplus would go too far. Specific help for middle and lower income people in London is uncontroversial..

How would you prevent such a policy from being portrayed thus: London has too much money sloshing around to deal with its own workers decently, so the rest of the UK has to pump even more money into it? Surely not likely to go down well.

Only a lunatic could imagine that taxing the rest of the country more to subsidise businesses and middle class in London is reasonable

Ok then - maybe London should keep more of the money it generates rather subsidising the rest of the country as it does now.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, I generally disagree with SNP types (or Yes types, at least) banging on about the evils of London, but I do think the housing market subsidy for London would go down about as well as rat poison.

There may be a case for regional minimum wages, though I'd need some convincing, but the rest of the country funnelling money towards London's property market would not go down well at all.

This sort of thing is just one more reason why Balkanising England by carving it up into shitty little regional assemblies would be despicable. London gets more funding per head than the rest of England, but it also contributes more than any other area to the Treasury.

So, at least one side (and possibly both) would be pissed off with the funding arrangements for the rubbish regional assemblies. Either poorer areas get less per head and feel like they're funding a wealthy city, or London feels like it's contributing almost everything and getting back far less than its fair share. (It's practically identical to the way it's possible to see Scotland either getting more than its fair share or more than paying its own way).

Morris, England wakening up to what Scotland has felt for ages. London is a blood sucker, they will never be happy till all the money is there.

antifrank said:

NickPalmer said:

Dutch exit poll:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/uk-eu-election-netherlands-idUKKBN0E224820140522

I thought we weren't getting exit polls to avoid influencing the straggler electorates?

Yes, that's an EU rule, but the ornery Dutch paid no attention and did it anyway. I don't think it's been published in print (de Telegraaf this morning doesn't mention it) so it's probably popped up on a website or Swiss media to get around the ban, as often happens with French elections.

A curious factoid (I've not worked this out systematically) is that Labour seems to have advanced in the much of the south while falling back in the north. It's not just London - Labour's group in Hastings is now the largest they've ever had, apparently, and the Bristol and Cambridge results were pretty good. By contrast, Rotherham was far from good and there are lots of other examples too.

The Tories didn't do well either, but with less of a regional pattern, just sagged across most of the board. The LibDems seem to have shown that a strong local party can produce great incumbency benefits, but sometimes it doesn't work at all - contrast Kingston and Sutton.

Carnyx said:

Oliver_PB said:

MaxPB said:

The housing policy would be a tougher sell, but the minimum wage I don't see any issues. It would be paid for by businesses, not the taxpayer. As for housing, there is a specific issue of supply shortages, the only way to resolve it would be to increase supply drastically (20-25k flats per year in London) in the £200-250k range and limit the ownership to people earning under £44k per year (basic rate tax payers) and have them hold onto said flats as owner occupiers for at least 5 or 7 years. Do it on a non-profit basis and then call it a day.

Well, there is another way to resolve it: mass building of new social housing. Can't see the Tories going for it, but it might be a good policy for Labour, particularly as you could announce it as a nationwide project.

That would also resolve a worry about MaxPB's proposals - that public money is being injected into the system for private profit (and, given the state of the London housing bubble, possibly also disastrous loss). It is one of the things that worries me about the MP (and MSP!) expenses system that mortgage subsidies encourage politicians to have an incentive to tap into an inflated housing market.

IIRC, policemen and firemen routinely had houses provided in the old days. That's another solution, for employers to provide social housing for key workers.

The problem with the key worker crap is that it feeds into this public sector, good; private sector, bad idea. I don't see why public sector workers should receive state subsidised housing as well as higher than average wages and higher than average pension provisions. A system open to anyone earning the basic rate of tax is the fairest way to do it. flats in zones 2-4 from £150k to £250k requiring a 10% deposit. Not for profit.

lots of central gains for Labour. An omen for the Croydon Central general election race next year?

Mr. G, as I said, that's not a view I take generally. But if housing subsidy for the vastly higher prices in London occurred it'd make the rest of the country livid.

Mr. Antifrank, and here was I thinking it was the capital of England.

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

Oliver_PB said:

MaxPB said:

The housing policy would be a tougher sell, but the minimum wage I don't see any issues. It would be paid for by businesses, not the taxpayer. As for housing, there is a specific issue of supply shortages, the only way to resolve it would be to increase supply drastically (20-25k flats per year in London) in the £200-250k range and limit the ownership to people earning under £44k per year (basic rate tax payers) and have them hold onto said flats as owner occupiers for at least 5 or 7 years. Do it on a non-profit basis and then call it a day.

Well, there is another way to resolve it: mass building of new social housing. Can't see the Tories going for it, but it might be a good policy for Labour, particularly as you could announce it as a nationwide project.

That would also resolve a worry about MaxPB's proposals - that public money is being injected into the system for private profit (and, given the state of the London housing bubble, possibly also disastrous loss). It is one of the things that worries me about the MP (and MSP!) expenses system that mortgage subsidies encourage politicians to have an incentive to tap into an inflated housing market.

IIRC, policemen and firemen routinely had houses provided in the old days. That's another solution, for employers to provide social housing for key workers.

The problem with the key worker crap is that it feeds into this public sector, good; private sector, bad idea. I don't see why public sector workers should receive state subsidised housing as well as higher than average wages and higher than average pension provisions. A system open to anyone earning the basic rate of tax is the fairest way to do it. flats in zones 2-4 from £150k to £250k requiring a 10% deposit. Not for profit.

There are key workers in the private sector as well. Historically, employers would build housing for their workers but that seems to have gone out of fashion, aside from informing the introduction to Antiques Roadshow most weeks.

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, worse than William the Conqueror/Bastard?

Not even the Bastard devised boiling alive as a punishment, or made sodomy and pre-marital sex for a Queen, capital offences.

The Harrowing of the North was more than a bit unpleasant, but you could argue it developed from the Anglo-Saxon kings' main method of dealing with local government problems.

Didn't notice Labour gain in Bishopston after Ed M visited Bristol cafe with 12 aides, bought one coffee between them. Green Gain from LD.

Labour wins control of Croydon Council (Lab 40, Con 30)

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, as I said, that's not a view I take generally. But if housing subsidy for the vastly higher prices in London occurred it'd make the rest of the country livid.

Housing subsidy in London is already commonplace because of private sector social renters. This would allow people to own a flat and pay into equity and get them out of the social housing sector reducing the government subsidy. As prices and rents rise in London all it means is the social housing subsidy rises as well. Any action to take people out of the rental market and into owner occupation will cool down the housing market in London as rental yields fall and buy-to-letters begin to sell up.

BobaFett said:

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, the magic of commuting?

A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.

Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.

In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.

Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!

Whats the average rent in London ?

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, the magic of commuting?

A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.

Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.

In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.

Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!

Whats the average rent in London ?

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.html

Christ, how do you even live on £28k there !

Well exactly...

Hmm but people must want to live there even though it must leave them with either a very frugal lifestyle or alot of debt...

Derby City Council results complete Lab 8 Con 5 LD 2 ( plus 1 in a double vacancy ) UKIP 2

Lab gained 1 from Con and 1 from LD
Con gained 1 from LD
UKIP gained 2 from Lab

JohnLilburne said:

Sean_F said:

H

JohnLilburne said:

anotherDave said:

Off topic
Interesting article on pre-reformation catholic England.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100272287/how-a-protestant-spin-machine-hid-the-truth-about-the-english-reformation/

A bit of a straw man argument there. Does anyone actually believe the following is in anyway true?

"For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church..."

Apparently Catholic England was a place of fun and jollity, and people getting happily pissed.

Henry VIII was by some margin, the nastiest King that England ever had.

That can be argued, but it's not really germane to this argument, he was basically a Catholic theologically, hence the Fidei Defensor title which, don't forget, was bestowed by a pope.

Just done a WEA course on the History of Parliament where the lecturer argued the same point re nastiest king. However, undemocratic though his Parliaments were, the fact remains that the relevant Acts were passed by them. This suggests that opposition wasn’t as strong as suggested in the Telegraph’s piece, although the subsequent treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace did indicate that dissent was a risky (at least!!!) business.

BTW: May I add my thanks to AndyJS and the others on PB who have been providing a much better and more coherent summary of the results and swings than the mainstream media seem to be able to manage.

Richard_Nabavi said:

A couple of observations:

The stand-out result so far to me is Hammersmith. On a night when the Conservatives generally did no worse than expected, to lose that particular council is a bit of a shock - it has often been cited as a particularly successful example of Conservative local government in action, but it seems local voters weren't convinced. So that looks like a notable bit of bad news for the Tories.

As Max has mentioned earlier, I'd be fairly certain this was due to issues around housing and renting that are peculiar to London. I seem to remember various polls where the subsample for private renters was very strongly Labour.

Not sure what the Tories can do about it in the short term and since H&F and most of the rest of London already have Labour MPs, it might not have that great an effect on the GE outcome.

@PopulusPolls: New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+2); Cons 34 (-1); LD 9 (+1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 7 (-2) Tables http://t.co/qHw2obDXsx

Govia wins new rail franchise
The Government has announced the winner of the competition to run a new rail franchise that includes the £6.5 billion Thameslink project.

The new Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) franchise will be run by the Go-Ahead Group company Govia, with rival company FirstGroup missing out.

FirstGroup had been running a section of the new franchise under the First Capital Connect (FCC) banner since 2006, but FCC will disappear when the new seven-year TSGN franchise starts in September 2014.

While Go-Ahead celebrated today, FirstGroup chiefs expressed their disappointment at losing out on a franchise which, in terms of passengers, is the biggest ever awarded.

malcolmg said:

murali_s said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Oliver_PB said:

MaxPB said:

They need London specific policy of the same kind that gets Boris elected.

I'd be careful about that. Any party announcing London specific policies will be very negatively received elsewhere in the country.

I think stuff specific to lower paid workers and housing costs would not be controversial, pretty much everyone in the country realises that London is not like the rest of the country and having the minimum wage set to £7.20 per hour and spending some government money to allow middle and lower income people onto the housing ladder in London is not going to be a big problem. Any talk of different tax rates or allowing London to keep some of its huge tax surplus would go too far. Specific help for middle and lower income people in London is uncontroversial..

How would you prevent such a policy from being portrayed thus: London has too much money sloshing around to deal with its own workers decently, so the rest of the UK has to pump even more money into it? Surely not likely to go down well.

Only a lunatic could imagine that taxing the rest of the country more to subsidise businesses and middle class in London is reasonable

Ok then - maybe London should keep more of the money it generates rather subsidising the rest of the country as it does now.

It is not subsidising Scotland , our flow is all southward to London. The fallacy that London subsidises anybody is a joke. Take infrastructure , last figures I saw per head of population , per year in London £2600, per year in North East England £5.
Great subsidy there.

That was transport alone IIRC - but that makes your point all the more .

@JohnRentoul: Ukip blames London election performance on difficulty appealing to the "educated and cultured" http://t.co/vL8Mj9v8Tz

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: Ukip blames London election performance on difficulty appealing to the "educated and cultured" http://t.co/vL8Mj9v8Tz

In an interview this morning Mr Farage made the point that the London results are not as poor for UKIP as they may appear, because UKIP were in many cases fielding only one candidate in a three candidate ward.

http://youtu.be/hSC_RcFt0yk

OldKingCole said:

JohnLilburne said:

Sean_F said:

H

JohnLilburne said:

anotherDave said:

Off topic
Interesting article on pre-reformation catholic England.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100272287/how-a-protestant-spin-machine-hid-the-truth-about-the-english-reformation/

A bit of a straw man argument there. Does anyone actually believe the following is in anyway true?

"For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church..."

Apparently Catholic England was a place of fun and jollity, and people getting happily pissed.

Henry VIII was by some margin, the nastiest King that England ever had.

That can be argued, but it's not really germane to this argument, he was basically a Catholic theologically, hence the Fidei Defensor title which, don't forget, was bestowed by a pope.

Just done a WEA course on the History of Parliament where the lecturer argued the same point re nastiest king. However, undemocratic though his Parliaments were, the fact remains that the relevant Acts were passed by them. This suggests that opposition wasn’t as strong as suggested in the Telegraph’s piece, although the subsequent treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace did indicate that dissent was a risky (at least!!!) business.

He also had a very funny way of trying to win hearts and make friends north of the Border when seeking to marry off his prince to the Scots princess. If it hadn't been for that he'd have achieved the United Kingdom of Scotland and England some score years earlier than 1603.

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, the magic of commuting?

A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.

Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.

In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.

Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!

Whats the average rent in London ?

Pulpstar said:

BobaFett said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fett, the magic of commuting?

A politician trying to win seats elsewhere making an argument that people on £60k plus in London deserve taxpayer-funded housing subsidies would have a fun time.

Well there aren't all on that, are they? Many key healthcare workers and private sector rank and file earn nothing like that. Nothing at all like that. This is many provincials' weird and wacky view of London – that it is paved with gold and people earn a fortune.

In fact, the median wage in the capital is about £28,000.

Not that I would expect you have any idea what London is like, as you have never even bothered to visit us!

Whats the average rent in London ?

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.html

Christ, how do you even live on £28k there !

Well exactly...

Hmm but people must want to live there even though it must leave them with either a very frugal lifestyle or alot of debt...

Or overcrowding...

What's Streatham like ?

£120pppw for a room in a 3 bed flat sharing with 2 others seems reasonable !

3 Bedrooms £325 pw Lewin Road, Streatham Common, SW16
3 bedroom flat to rent; Located within easy reach of Streatham Common, this three bedroom first floor flat offers generous entertaining space and stylish ^_~

What's Streatham like??

If you have to ask, you'll never understand...

Easterross said:

Can one of the experts please explain why SKY is showing almost double the number of councillors elected than the BBC and totally different numbers for gains and losses.

There are different ways of making comparison between elections — for example whether or not you take defections and by-elections into account.

But I can't understand why there are any differences over simple numbers elected last night.

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

Christ, how do you even live on £28k there !

Yeah - we know SeanT earns millions and lives in a two-room flat in Muswell Hill; I'm a higher-rate taxpayer and rent a two-room flat above a shop in Holloway. Personally I think we should waive planning permission for lots of skyscraper blocks. The skyline? Pshaw. How many minutes a day does the average Londoner spead admiring the view?

You could own a mansion in Streatham still Nick.

AndyJS said:

Easterross said:

Can one of the experts please explain why SKY is showing almost double the number of councillors elected than the BBC and totally different numbers for gains and losses.

There are different ways of making comparison between elections — for example whether or not you take defections and by-elections into account.

But I can't understand why there are any differences over simple numbers elected last night.

The difference must be more than that. Sky show that all the parties currently hae twice as many councillors as the BBC.

Morris_Dancer said:

On election coverage: was there a horrific Jeremy Vine CGI moment?

Couldn't recommend a purchase.

Had to give up watching Vine playing hop scotch. It is as if the BBC have invented a CGI application and can't think where else to use it.

Good morning all. Well they'll be singing the red flag in West London this morning! H&F result makes me more confident of a Labour gain in Ealing Central & Acton next year.

I overestimated the Kippers chances in terms of seats in Sunlun & S. Tyneside, but they did rack up a strong percentage. If they become the main non-Labour option across the red north, will this actually be so bad? More of a concern in the battleground though, if we leak votes next year to counter-weigh those we gain from the LDs.

Does anyone still think that UKIP won't come top of the Euro vote share?

Dr. Spyn, it's horrendous.

I recall some nonsense or other (perhaps Ming Campbell as a 'gangsta' rapper). It happened at about 2am or so in the morning, so the whole audience would be politically interested people with no desire for such nonsense. It's baffling why the BBC do such idiotic things. I saw a snippet of old coverage (maybe 1983) on the Parliament Channel once, and it was far better. Less gimmickry, more thinking.

Edited extra bit: just one more thing I dislike about Monaco, the weird 'nothing happens' Friday.

Read a bit on Joe Saward's blog about how a man doesn't have a soul if he doesn't get excited by the cars going through the narrow streets of Monaco. Either that, or he wants a race to have some racing in it.

http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/betting-markets-react-to-ukip-successes/

shadsy said:

http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/betting-markets-react-to-ukip-successes/

I'm no London expert but aren't Tower Hamlets and H&F quite err... 'different' places ?

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

What's Streatham like ?

You don't want to know...

I grew up in Streatham. I don't miss it.

I might be moving to Sheffield soon. Better or worse than Streatham?

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

What's Streatham like ?

You don't want to know...

I grew up in Streatham. I don't miss it.

I might be moving to Sheffield soon. Better or worse than Streatham?

Which area in Sheffield ?

MarkSenior said:

Kingston On Thames Con 28 LD 17 with 3 seats in Norbiton to be recounted on Sunday morning . These are close between Labour and Lib Dem

Why recounted on Sunday rather than today?

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

What's Streatham like ?

You don't want to know...

I grew up in Streatham. I don't miss it.I might be moving to Sheffield soon. Better or worse than Streatham?

Which area in Sheffield ?

Depends what we can afford I guess.

Is the outlying settlement of Stocksbridge cheap for a reason?

@michaelsavage: On a day of great results for #Ukip, Neil Hamilton fails to win his council seat in Wandsworth.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Or, to put it another way: if PR is the solution to political disenchantment, then surely everyone should be delighted with the coalition we have at the moment - which is exactly the kind of effect you'd get with PR. I don't see too much sign of such enthusiasm.

I wouldn't exactly say PR was the solution to political disenchantment. I mean, there are plenty of countries in the EU with PR, and the voters there aren't generally particularly enchanted right now either. But in a multi-party situation FPTP has the potential to take it to a whole new level. If getting on for one voter in five votes for UKIP and they get basically no seats, and not much more than one voter in three votes for Lab and they end up forming a majority government, that strikes me as problematic...

I don't suppose you want to be drawn on this, but, depending on the way the other parties happen to be aligned:
Majority government at 38%, OK?
Majority government at 32%, OK?
Majority government at 24%, OK?
Majority government at 16%, OK?
Isn't there a point somewhere where you'd draw a line write "WTF" next to it?

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

What's Streatham like ?

You don't want to know...

I grew up in Streatham. I don't miss it.I might be moving to Sheffield soon. Better or worse than Streatham?

Which area in Sheffield ?

Depends what we can afford I guess.

Is the outlying settlement of Stocksbridge cheap for a reason?

Looks great !

Avoid S3, S4, S5 (Pitsmoor, Burngreave, Spital Hill, Parsons Cross) is what I've heard.

(I'm actually in S4 now - work)

You'll have the Peaks right on your doorstep. Hope you are ready for all the fresh air.

BobaFett said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, must admit, I hadn't heard the boiling alive story. That is quite horrid.

Mr. Fett, given you seem outraged that an individual might not travel to London simply to admire its delights I'm not sure your view of London being hated is necessarily correct.

You claim it as an English city, its capital, and can't even take a two-hour train journey to check it out. Not even once in your life, even though you are in your thirties. If you did visit, you might actually think better of us rather than moaning about us all the time.

The reason UKIP dont do well in London is that relatively few people who live there were born there, and very few people have elderly relatives there. UKIP voters are generally people who dont like what is happening to the place they knew as home growing up, but still live nearby

If your parents or Grandparents are stuck in a place they used to love but now dont recognize, surrounded by a load of people talking a different language/all the old shops have changed, UKIP voters empathise with them and vote accordingly.

My own area is full of people who went to school here and whose families have roots here.. .no one really moves out, hence UKIP will do well

But inner London is full of newcomers (British and foreign) with no roots there who celebrate the fast pace of change, and cant get their heads round why anyone wouldnt feel the same... so they call them names!!

UKIP seemed to have stopped winning/gaining seats according to the BBC.

Morris_Dancer said:

Despicable High Court judge reaches inane and indefensible verdict to spit on history and consider finders-keepers a good rule of thumb when discovering dead monarchs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Disgraceful decision. Absolutely crackers. The Government deserves a massive slap as well for its role in this.

Edited extra bit: on the plus side I was wondering what to write my next blog about.

Excellent decision. Richard had almost nothing to do with York. Neither he nor his parents were even born in the county and for most of the war York actually opposed the 'Yorkist' cause and refused to allow Richard or his brother entry to the city.

BBC LAB +114 SKY LAB +88 both after 62 councils

BBC +/- councillors ties back to nil Sky ties to +2

Wonder why the difference

Saint Reatham is still not on the A list, but give it time.

The interesting thing is that gentrification is not turning these areas blue. Quite the opposite, it seems.