politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank compares 2015 to 1992
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank compares 2015 to 1992
We spend much time looking at the most recent developments. But every now and then it is profitable to stand back and look at longer term trends. That is most easily done by comparing elections which produced quite similar overall results and then looking at the detail. The 1992 and the 2015 election results are sufficiently similar overall to make that a valuable exercise.
Comments
-
I say.0
-
Great piece.
Labour really need to find a way to stem their decline with the white working-class/lower-middle-class (and I still think their problems with them are more social/cultural rather than economic).
Increasingly, there's a trend for left-leaning parties (not least the US Democrats) to build their voting bases on ethnic minorities, young people, the highly-educated and public-sector workers, and Labour seems to be trending the same way - but that's a recipe for an extremely "inefficient" vote under the UK electoral system since all those groups are always going to be disproportionately concentrated in the big cities.0 -
That's true, it works for the Democrats in the US but only on presidential elections because the ethnic vote can directly affect the result state by state on the electoral college, but it's a detriment to the Democrats on the congressional level.Danny565 said:Great piece.
Labour really need to find a way to stem their decline with the white working-class/lower-middle-class (and I still think their problems with them are more social/cultural rather than economic).
Increasingly, there's a trend for left-leaning parties (not least the US Democrats) to build their voting bases on ethnic minorities, young people, the highly-educated and public-sector workers, and Labour seems to be trending the same way - but that's a recipe for an extremely "inefficient" vote under the UK electoral system since all those groups are always going to be disproportionately concentrated in the big cities.0 -
FPT @Richard_Tyndall
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
But the referendum only confirms the reality, it doesn't change it.
He was elected to serve for 5 years. For 5 years he should serve. Otherwise he is no better than Louise Mensch. Quitting because he doesn't want "to be associated with [a parliament that has declined in power]" seems to me to be almost the definition of personal pique: thre is a natural breakpoint in 2020 when he can step down if he wants0 -
May I ask, how many seats in the south outside London which Labour won in 1997 are Labour in third place now?0
-
Surely any referendum is a diminution of the power of parliamentCharles said:FPT @Richard_Tyndall
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
But the referendum only confirms the reality, it doesn't change it.
He was elected to serve for 5 years. For 5 years he should serve. Otherwise he is no better than Louise Mensch. Quitting because he doesn't want "to be associated with [a parliament that has declined in power]" seems to me to be almost the definition of personal pique: thre is a natural breakpoint in 2020 when he can step down if he wants0 -
I prefer referendums as long as the average person is educated well enough to understand the subject, they are more democratic than parliaments.rcs1000 said:
Surely any referendum is a diminution of the power of parliamentCharles said:FPT @Richard_Tyndall
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
But the referendum only confirms the reality, it doesn't change it.
He was elected to serve for 5 years. For 5 years he should serve. Otherwise he is no better than Louise Mensch. Quitting because he doesn't want "to be associated with [a parliament that has declined in power]" seems to me to be almost the definition of personal pique: thre is a natural breakpoint in 2020 when he can step down if he wants0 -
I'm not objecting to the referendum, merely pointing out that if you're complaining about the diminution of power of parliament, then holding a referendum - which de facto diminishes the power of parliament - should also be a resignation issue.Speedy said:
I prefer referendums as long as the average person is educated well enough to understand the subject, they are more democratic than parliaments.rcs1000 said:
Surely any referendum is a diminution of the power of parliamentCharles said:FPT @Richard_Tyndall
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
But the referendum only confirms the reality, it doesn't change it.
He was elected to serve for 5 years. For 5 years he should serve. Otherwise he is no better than Louise Mensch. Quitting because he doesn't want "to be associated with [a parliament that has declined in power]" seems to me to be almost the definition of personal pique: thre is a natural breakpoint in 2020 when he can step down if he wants0 -
Fascinating article Antifrank, thanks. The stranglehold of Labour in the cities and the Tories in rural areas mirrors the pattern of the centre left and centre right across the developed world, it remains the suburbs and smaller market towns which determine elections and for the moment the Tories lead. Labour's performance in Wales in 1992 was boosted by homeboy Kinnock though. 2015 also had the same failure of the polls to predict the Tory majority and the same fears of Labour's handling of the economy. However if 2015 was 1992 then the Tories need to hope 2020 is not 19970
-
Speedy Thanet South, Rochester and Strood and Braintree, Castle Point and Clacton if you count them as South and not Eastern0
-
Danny565/Speedy Indeed, though there is a growing ethnic vote in the suburbs and more suburban residents are graduates than the fifties. Obama was also able to rack up virtually all the black vote unopposed and get a huge turnout from that demographic for obvious reasons, without him on the ballot the Dems will be relying on Hillary to win back much of the white working class vote in the likes of the rustbelt to make up for the lower turnout for her with ethnic minorities and the black vote0
-
I wonder if Antifrank is underestimating the effect that the Northern Powerhouse might have. Osborne certainly seems to believe in it - his second or third tweet after winning the GE was on it.
Although it depends on:
1) exactly what the phrase means;
2) whether enough will be delivered to make a difference in 2020;
3) whether the people in the areas notice or care.
But the north deserves a little love. It'll be interesting to see how Labour handles the government's proposals.0 -
Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.0 -
The referendum is the last chance we will have to halt the diminution. If that is lost then Parliament really does become pointless, condemned to a slow but accelerating slide into Ken Clarke's dream of it being nothing more than a Council Chamber in Europe.Charles said:FPT @Richard_Tyndall
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
But the referendum only confirms the reality, it doesn't change it.
He was elected to serve for 5 years. For 5 years he should serve. Otherwise he is no better than Louise Mensch. Quitting because he doesn't want "to be associated with [a parliament that has declined in power]" seems to me to be almost the definition of personal pique: thre is a natural breakpoint in 2020 when he can step down if he wants
Why should anyone choose to continue to support something they no longer believe in. Let another time serving rubber stamper take his place.0 -
The Conservatives could well lose power in 2020, but Labour won't come close to a 100 seat majority. That means Labour winning seats like Giilingham, St. Albans, Chingford, Clacton etc. Won't happen.Barnesian said:Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.0 -
Parliament has already surrendered the power by agreeing to rule by Brussels. The referendum is a chance to reverse that decision.rcs1000 said:
Surely any referendum is a diminution of the power of parliamentCharles said:FPT @Richard_Tyndall
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
But the referendum only confirms the reality, it doesn't change it.
He was elected to serve for 5 years. For 5 years he should serve. Otherwise he is no better than Louise Mensch. Quitting because he doesn't want "to be associated with [a parliament that has declined in power]" seems to me to be almost the definition of personal pique: thre is a natural breakpoint in 2020 when he can step down if he wants0 -
@antifrank
'but the Conservatives have a much more enduring demographic problem.'
By 2020 40% of voters will be over 50 years old and there will be an additional 1.6 million more voters enjoying George Osborne's goodies.
It's good to have a demographic problem with people that actually vote.0 -
Barnesian Sean F Yes, though I think Burnham more likely to be a more northern, less posh Blair but probably best he or Cooper could hope for is a majority of about 20-40 and that would require winning back all the voters who voted Labour in 2005 and Tory in 2010 and 2015 as well as at least half Labour's Scottish seats from the SNP and also the Tories losing some votes to UKIP post EU ref0
-
Is Chingford undergoing the kind of demographic changes that much of North London is? I was shocked to see it so relatively high up on Labour's target list.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives could well lose power in 2020, but Labour won't come close to a 100 seat majority. That means Labour winning seats like Giilingham, St. Albans, Chingford, Clacton etc. Won't happen.Barnesian said:Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.
0 -
I'm not sure about Labour getting a majority, period.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives could well lose power in 2020, but Labour won't come close to a 100 seat majority. That means Labour winning seats like Giilingham, St. Albans, Chingford, Clacton etc. Won't happen.Barnesian said:Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.
They need 93 gains (most probably with only a small handful in Scotland) and there are only 6 non-Tory targets in their top 110 targets that aren't held SNP held.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/united_kingdom/targets/lab
So almost all of them will need to come from the Tories. But those sorts of gains start to require seats like Stafford, Gravesham, Basildon South & East Thurrock, Canterbury, Thanet South, Milton Keynes and Portsmouth South.
Hmm.0 -
'And this is the real story. Labour are not taking fewer seats now than in 1992 in the south. They took ten seats in the south west, the south east outside London and the east in 1992 and 12 seats in the same areas in 2015. But the Conservatives, benefiting from this southwards drift of population, are taking 20 more seats in these areas'
The most important factor contributing to Tory success in this area is surely the LibDem collapse - rather than demographics.How much of that is permanent remains to be seen.0 -
The only British politician I would compare with Merkel is Cameron himself. Cooper is not someone I could imagine as a coalition builder or able to transcend her party.Barnesian said:Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.0 -
First SLAB hustings in the centre of Edinburgh - looks like any mention of M&M will result in instant disqualification !!
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/6130677058061434890 -
I'd probably cap Labour out at 70-80 gains from the Tories in E&W, even now. That is.. unless something drastic happens, which is perfectly possible over 5 years. This last election has certainly underlined the importance of not forgetting Murphy's Law to me.
My strategy, if NOM comes up on a Betfair market at over evens, is that I'll start backing it. Probably seriously from the end of 2016 onwards, depends on the market size.
I'll dribble some cash in each month, and basically treat it as an alternative to an ISA.0 -
That was the one conclusion in antifrank's excellent piece that I thought was a bit of a stretch. An ageing population (and one which by virtue of that historically becomes more right-leaning) presents Labour with the bigger challenge - especially if immigration does get curbed over the next five years.john_zims said:@antifrank
'but the Conservatives have a much more enduring demographic problem.'
By 2020 40% of voters will be over 50 years old and there will be an additional 1.6 million more voters enjoying George Osborne's goodies.
It's good to have a demographic problem with people that actually vote.0 -
I don't think anti-frank is underestimating the effect of a Northern Powerhouse at all. The Conservatives in the North East have a brand issue; that is that people do not trust the Conservatives to have their best interests in at heart. When voters in the NE felt that Labour were a busted flush, they turned to UKIP - not the Conservative Party. Likewise, in Scotland voters have turned to the SNP, not the Conservative Party to express a disaffection not only with Labour, but to all of the Westminster parties.
One of Labour's greatest mistakes by far, was its inability in office to help create a fairer society for its voter base in the NE and in Scotland. By failing to tackle this issue, and leaving people feeling more powerless, poorer than ever - feeling like Labour doesn't care about them - there is a real danger that Labour could, if it is not careful lose these voters. Scotland has proved that as soon as a credible, organized alternative to them emerges people will jump up at it. One of the reasons why, despite the Conservatives' brand issues Labour struggled in 2015 is because many are starting to doubt whether it is able to sufficiently help the most poorest in our society. Labour's only saving grace in the North, is that UKIP unlike the SNP is unable to organised themselves into a credible movement.
Although London is pretty much becoming a Labour city, problems come with this too. London is increasingly being seen as a source of resentment from other parts of the country - that it is too liberal, too metropolitan, and that all the growth, investment and wealth is too concentrated in London. There's a danger that Labour could be associated with that.
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.0 -
On second thoughts by 1992 the LibDems had not advanced that far in the southern areas - but they did already hold a fair number of seats which have now gone Tory - Bath - Cheltenham - Truro - Devon North - Yeovil.0
-
@HYUFD
Reuters is doing a rolling 5 day average poll of the 2016 race.
Here is the GOP side:
http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,LIKELYR:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20140414-20150621/collapsed/false
Don't forget to change the time frame.0 -
I don't really see how Cameron and Merkel are similar - I think the German political system tends to produce figures completely unlike British politicians anyway. Merkel is someone inclined to look for agreement, and consensus. While Cameron made the best of the last coalition, he is not someone framed for his ability to work with the Conservative Right, for example. Cameron - like previous British political figures emphasises his differences, as FPTP leads figures to do. And while Merkel as I understand is genuinely popular in Germany, Cameron is essentially least bad of a pretty underwhelming bunch of political leaders in this country. I recall looking at many of his leader ratings, and a lot of them were in minus figures.williamglenn said:
The only British politician I would compare with Merkel is Cameron himself. Cooper is not someone I could imagine as a coalition builder or able to transcend her party.0 -
Yes, in part, but also there was a very big increase in the UKIP vote. Con and UKIP won 61% between them in May.Danny565 said:
Is Chingford undergoing the kind of demographic changes that much of North London is? I was shocked to see it so relatively high up on Labour's target list.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives could well lose power in 2020, but Labour won't come close to a 100 seat majority. That means Labour winning seats like Giilingham, St. Albans, Chingford, Clacton etc. Won't happen.Barnesian said:Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.0 -
FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.0 -
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.0 -
Without putting words into antifrank's mouth, I think he's saying that Greater London and core cities will expand, as a proportion of the population, over a generation, whereas rightward-leaning parts of the country will decline.MarqueeMark said:
That was the one conclusion in antifrank's excellent piece that I thought was a bit of a stretch. An ageing population (and one which by virtue of that historically becomes more right-leaning) presents Labour with the bigger challenge - especially if immigration does get curbed over the next five years.john_zims said:@antifrank
'but the Conservatives have a much more enduring demographic problem.'
By 2020 40% of voters will be over 50 years old and there will be an additional 1.6 million more voters enjoying George Osborne's goodies.
It's good to have a demographic problem with people that actually vote.
Though I'd expect growth in the former to push the latter even more strongly towards the Conservatives.
0 -
"In Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down..." The voters in Wales have the pleasure of a Labour Govt, running the NHS and education. Both areas performing worse than England. Luckily for the UK Plaid are unlikely to duplicate the SNP. But the Conservatives might eat into Labour's vote at the GE. The 2016 Welsh Assembly elections are starting to look difficult for Labour?0
-
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:I don't think anti-frank is underestimating the effect of a Northern Powerhouse at all. The Conservatives in the North East have a brand issue; that is that people do not trust the Conservatives to have their best interests in at heart. When voters in the NE felt that Labour were a busted flush, they turned to UKIP - not the Conservative Party. Likewise, in Scotland voters have turned to the SNP, not the Conservative Party to express a disaffection not only with Labour, but to all of the Westminster parties.
One of Labour's greatest mistakes by far, was its inability in office to help create a fairer society for its voter base in the NE and in Scotland. By failing to tackle this issue, and leaving people feeling more powerless, poorer than ever - feeling like Labour doesn't care about them - there is a real danger that Labour could, if it is not careful lose these voters. Scotland has proved that as soon as a credible, organized alternative to them emerges people will jump up at it. One of the reasons why, despite the Conservatives' brand issues Labour struggled in 2015 is because many are starting to doubt whether it is able to sufficiently help the most poorest in our society. Labour's only saving grace in the North, is that UKIP unlike the SNP is unable to organised themselves into a cr
Although London is pretty much becoming a Labour city, problems come with this too. London is increasingly being seen as a source of resentment from other parts of the country - that it is too liberal, too metropolitan, and that all the growth, investment and wealth is too concentrated in London. There's a danger that Labour could be associated with that.
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.0 -
Yes, and mostly from the subcontinent. My point was that someone (Richard Tyndall) had stated in the last thread that the US had the third most active cricket players in the world, behind India and Pakistan. I just can't see that as being true.AndyJS said:
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.0 -
NHS Wales is a shambles. I was referred to a specialist in Oct 2014, with an 18 week waiting list (or so I was told). Based on this week's update, I'm unlikely to be seen until September 2015 at the earliest - this is not an unusual occurrence.TCPoliticalBetting said:"In Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down..." The voters in Wales have the pleasure of a Labour Govt, running the NHS and education. Both areas performing worse than England. Luckily for the UK Plaid are unlikely to duplicate the SNP. But the Conservatives might eat into Labour's vote at the GE. The 2016 Welsh Assembly elections are starting to look difficult for Labour?
0 -
Wales has been gradually shifting right since 1970. 20 years from now, the Tories could be routinely winning seats like Bridgend, Alyn & Deeside, Clywd South, Newport East.TCPoliticalBetting said:"In Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down..." The voters in Wales have the pleasure of a Labour Govt, running the NHS and education. Both areas performing worse than England. Luckily for the UK Plaid are unlikely to duplicate the SNP. But the Conservatives might eat into Labour's vote at the GE. The 2016 Welsh Assembly elections are starting to look difficult for Labour?
0 -
Casino I think 70-80 gains from the Tories and 20 gains from the SNP is not impossible (that would still leave the SNP with a clear majority of Scottish seats)0
-
One imponderable for the next five years is UKIP's performance. Will they soar like a rocket in the wake of the EU referendum? Even if Out is decisively defeated, deft handling could give them a big lift in the polls. But if they continue with internecine warfare as at present, they will fizzle. If they surge, who will they gain votes from and where? If they crater, who will pick up their flotsam?0
-
Speedy Thanks for that, an excellent resource and will come in usual as we approach next February0
-
According to the US Cricket Association there are 200,000 Americans (edited to say 200,000 people living in America) playing cricket every weekend. That was in 2010.MTimT said:
Yes, and mostly from the subcontinent. My point was that someone (Richard Tyndall) had stated in the last thread that the US had the third most active cricket players in the world, behind India and Pakistan. I just can't see that as being true.AndyJS said:
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.0 -
Re Cricket
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470796.stm
"Today, there are 30,000 registered players and about 200,000 people who play cricket of some sort at weekends, says Don Lockerbie, chief executive of the USA Cricket Association. Throw in an estimated 15 million fans, 950 clubs and 48 leagues, and the game probably hasn't been this healthy since that famous match in 1844."0 -
@BBCsarahsmith: Iraq war now perceived to be a mistake by Labour and by Tony Blair says Lord Falconer on BBC Scotland tonight0
-
There is some encouraging data for the Conservatives from the recent election wrt. ethnic minorities. Still a long way to go, and they'll never catch Labour, but encouraging nonetheless.MarqueeMark said:
That was the one conclusion in antifrank's excellent piece that I thought was a bit of a stretch. An ageing population (and one which by virtue of that historically becomes more right-leaning) presents Labour with the bigger challenge - especially if immigration does get curbed over the next five years.john_zims said:@antifrank
'but the Conservatives have a much more enduring demographic problem.'
By 2020 40% of voters will be over 50 years old and there will be an additional 1.6 million more voters enjoying George Osborne's goodies.
It's good to have a demographic problem with people that actually vote.0 -
Have you factored in:-HYUFD said:Casino I think 70-80 gains from the Tories and 20 gains from the SNP is not impossible (that would still leave the SNP with a clear majority of Scottish seats)
1. Seat losses in Wales
2. Seat losses of circa 20 from boundary changes.
0 -
Have Labour noticed?Sean_F said:
Wales has been gradually shifting right since 1970. 20 years from now, the Tories could be routinely winning seats like Bridgend, Alyn & Deeside, Clywd South, Newport East.TCPoliticalBetting said:"In Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down..." The voters in Wales have the pleasure of a Labour Govt, running the NHS and education. Both areas performing worse than England. Luckily for the UK Plaid are unlikely to duplicate the SNP. But the Conservatives might eat into Labour's vote at the GE. The 2016 Welsh Assembly elections are starting to look difficult for Labour?
0 -
This is absolutely the biggest threat.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:I don't think anti-frank is underestimating the effect of a Northern Powerhouse at all. The Conservatives in the North East have a brand issue; that is that people do not trust the Conservatives to have their best interests in at heart. When voters in the NE felt that Labour were a busted flush, they turned to UKIP - not the Conservative Party. Likewise, in Scotland voters have turned to the SNP, not the Conservative Party to express a disaffection not only with Labour, but to all of the Westminster parties.
Although London is pretty much becoming a Labour city, problems come with this too. London is increasingly being seen as a source of resentment from other parts of the country - that it is too liberal, too metropolitan, and that all the growth, investment and wealth is too concentrated in London. There's a danger that Labour could be associated with that.
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
No easy fixes either. There simply aren't 1 million+ council homes around to privatise anymore.0 -
ScottP Even Jeb Bush said last month "knowing what we know now, ...I would not have engaged."
"I would not have gone into Iraq."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/jeb-bush-iraq-2016/
0 -
Envy of the world. Yet not copied outside the UK. GP forgot to tell consultant a key change in condition. 3 months later consultant stunned. GP only works 2 days in 5. GP looks to have a BMI closer to 35 than my 27.John_M said:
NHS Wales is a shambles. I was referred to a specialist in Oct 2014, with an 18 week waiting list (or so I was told). Based on this week's update, I'm unlikely to be seen until September 2015 at the earliest - this is not an unusual occurrence.TCPoliticalBetting said:"In Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down..." The voters in Wales have the pleasure of a Labour Govt, running the NHS and education. Both areas performing worse than England. Luckily for the UK Plaid are unlikely to duplicate the SNP. But the Conservatives might eat into Labour's vote at the GE. The 2016 Welsh Assembly elections are starting to look difficult for Labour?
0 -
I rule nothing out, but I'm really struggling to see how Labour recover in Scotland to regain half of their seats.HYUFD said:Casino I think 70-80 gains from the Tories and 20 gains from the SNP is not impossible (that would still leave the SNP with a clear majority of Scottish seats)
I'd say 5-10 is more realistic.0 -
SeanF Only if the Tories are getting on for a majority of 100, they won 14 seats in Wales in 1983, 3 more than they did in 20150
-
Labour might recover in Scotland. Right now I can see absolutely no evidence that they will. Their trajectory is still downward at present.Casino_Royale said:
I rule nothing out, but I'm really struggling to see how Labour recover in Scotland to regain half of their seats.HYUFD said:Casino I think 70-80 gains from the Tories and 20 gains from the SNP is not impossible (that would still leave the SNP with a clear majority of Scottish seats)
I'd say 5-10 is more realistic.0 -
Bit late to realise that.Scott_P said:@BBCsarahsmith: Iraq war now perceived to be a mistake by Labour and by Tony Blair says Lord Falconer on BBC Scotland tonight
0 -
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:I don't think anti-frank is underestimating the effect of a Northern Powerhouse at all. The Conservatives in the North East have a brand issue; that is that people do not trust the Conservatives to have their best interests in at heart. When voters in the NE felt that Labour were a busted flush, they turned to UKIP - not the Conservative Party. Likewise, in Scotland voters have turned to the SNP, not the Conservative Party to express a disaffection not only with Labour, but to all of the Westminster parties.
One of Labour's greatest mistakes by far, was its inability in office to help create a fairer society for its voter base in the NE and in Scotland. ...........
Although London is pretty much becoming a Labour city, problems come with this too. London is increasingly being seen as a source of resentment from other parts of the country - that it is too liberal, too metropolitan, and that all the growth, investment and wealth is too concentrated in London. There's a danger that Labour could be associated with that.
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
0 -
On home ownership, what strikes me is just how few have been built over the last 20 years. And that the few that have been built offer nothing like the living space of homes built up until c.1985.
I went back to the town I grew up in the weekend. I have been back many times, but this time I was explicitly looking at homes and house prices. With the view that my wife and I might like to move there to start a family.
Since the mid-1990s, the boundaries of the town have not changed *at all*. There has been some new (high density) housing development - one on the site of the old hospital, another on the site of an old pub and petrol station, and some redevelopment of property with very large gardens to accommodate 2 or 3 extra plots - but that's about it.
In the 1970s, this town had two huge new private sector developments (several hundred plots) of 3-4 detached family homes, all with decent front and back gardens, and garages. In fact, my parents bought one in 1980. But now, nothing like that.
Since then an extra six million people have moved to the UK, most settling in London and the south-east. My parents house, which they sold in 1999 for £140k, would now go for c.£420k.
Something has to give. In this case, it's the price. And it's pricing hundreds of thousands out.0 -
Chingford is now on the London Underground map!Danny565 said:
Is Chingford undergoing the kind of demographic changes that much of North London is? I was shocked to see it so relatively high up on Labour's target list.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives could well lose power in 2020, but Labour won't come close to a 100 seat majority. That means Labour winning seats like Giilingham, St. Albans, Chingford, Clacton etc. Won't happen.Barnesian said:Roll forward five years to 1997 and 2020.
If history repeats itself ... then the Tory party will turn in on itself over Europe and Cameron or his successor will have to deal with the bastards. BY 2020, the public will have grown weary of Tory squabbles and an ineffective crippled government that "gives the impression of being in office but not in power" and will be looking for a change.
Yvette will emerge as another Angela Merkel leading to a Labour majority of 100 (perhaps with some help from SNP and LibDems in a centre left alliance of some sort).
The result won't be driven by policies or demographics or regional differences but a widespread deep seated emotional feeling that it is time for a change.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chingford_railway_station_signage_2015.JPG0 -
Remember though that just a year ago, Labour almost tied with the SNP in Scotland in the European elections (there was actually a small swing towards Labour compared to 2009). Things swung against Labour very quickly, but by the same token they could theoretically swing back quickly (though nothing guaranteed about it).antifrank said:
Labour might recover in Scotland. Right now I can see absolutely no evidence that they will. Their trajectory is still downward at present.Casino_Royale said:
I rule nothing out, but I'm really struggling to see how Labour recover in Scotland to regain half of their seats.HYUFD said:Casino I think 70-80 gains from the Tories and 20 gains from the SNP is not impossible (that would still leave the SNP with a clear majority of Scottish seats)
I'd say 5-10 is more realistic.0 -
Casino They will have a better leader and Scotland will have got more powers from the Smith Plans anyway, maybe more so have less need to express grievances. For comparison in the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois won 49% and 54 seats and the Liberals 33% and 19, at the 1997 Canadian general election the Bloc won 44 seats and 37% the Liberals 26 and 36%. If the SNP total fell by the same total as the BQ, and they were both around the same total, and went direct to Labour rather than the LDs and Tories Labour would pick up around 22 seats from the SNP0
-
@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!0 -
Planning policy has been significantly loosened over the last three years or so, but the requirement for affordable homes, and various infrastructure levies push up the developer costs massively. I know in my area we have seen massive designation of land for housing over the next ten to fifteen years.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:I don't think anti-frank is underestimating the effect of a Northern Powerhouse at all. The Conservatives in the North East have a brand issue; that is that people do not trust the Conservatives to have their best interests in at heart. When voters in the NE felt that Labour were a busted flush, they turned to UKIP - not the Conservative Party. Likewise, in Scotland voters have turned to the SNP, not the Conservative Party to express a disaffection not only with Labour, but to all of the Westminster parties.
One of Labour's greatest mistakes by far, was its inability in office to help create a fairer society for its voter base in the NE and in Scotland. ...........
Although London is pretty much becoming a Labour city, problems come with this too. London is increasingly being seen as a source of resentment from other parts of the country - that it is too liberal, too metropolitan, and that all the growth, investment and wealth is too concentrated in London. There's a danger that Labour could be associated with that.
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.0 -
I thought (but could be wrong) that there were issues with the underground network preventing the mass building of skyscrapers due to the deep foundations required. I could be completely wrong as I am not an engineer.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:I don't think anti-frank is underestimating the effect of a Northern Powerhouse at all. The Conservatives in the North East have a brand issue; that is that people do not trust the Conservatives to have their best interests in at heart. When voters in the NE felt that Labour were a busted flush, they turned to UKIP - not the Conservative Party. Likewise, in Scotland voters have turned to the SNP, not the Conservative Party to express a disaffection not only with Labour, but to all of the Westminster parties.
One of Labour's greatest mistakes by far, was its inability in office to help create a fairer society for its voter base in the NE and in Scotland. ...........
Although London is pretty much becoming a Labour city, problems come with this too. London is increasingly being seen as a source of resentment from other parts of the country - that it is too liberal, too metropolitan, and that all the growth, investment and wealth is too concentrated in London. There's a danger that Labour could be associated with that.
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
0 -
Andorra.Sunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!0 -
OK, I Googled - it was Andorra! Not sure exactly how many troops they contributed to the Western Front thoughSunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!
0 -
Yeah, I googled, thanks!antifrank said:
Andorra.Sunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!
OK, following on from that -
Which part of the British Isles was at war with The Netherlands/Dutch Republic from 1651 to 1986?0 -
BerwickSunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, I googled, thanks!antifrank said:
Andorra.Sunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!
OK, following on from that -
Which part of the British Isles was at war with The Netherlands/Dutch Republic from 1651 to 1986?0 -
Not Berwick, no!SandyRentool said:
BerwickSunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, I googled, thanks!antifrank said:
Andorra.Sunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!
OK, following on from that -
Which part of the British Isles was at war with The Netherlands/Dutch Republic from 1651 to 1986?0 -
0
-
The town was at war with someone due to boundary changes. Maybe France?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Not Berwick, no!SandyRentool said:
BerwickSunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, I googled, thanks!antifrank said:
Andorra.Sunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!
OK, following on from that -
Which part of the British Isles was at war with The Netherlands/Dutch Republic from 1651 to 1986?0 -
Hartlepool?0
-
FTPT
But they contributed to support pensioners back when they were working not to support themselves now they are OAPS.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Your argument would be valid if pensioners didn't contribute to the Treasury throughout their younger working lives.notme said:
Obviously £143 is not the driver of comfort, its housing benefit, free tv license, winter fuel allowances, free bus passes and free prescriptions. Also importantly, if you are eligible for DLA when you enter retirement, you keep it, even if what was requiring the DLA is no longer there.richardDodd said:Not Me.As a pensioner i have to agree with you that pensioners live a very comfortable lifestyle I have to work hard at squandering the magnificent sum of of 143 pounds the Government gives me every week.
Pensioner benefits are paid out of current taxation - there is no pot.0 -
That was supposedly against Russia during the Crimean War - BUT Britain's declaration of war did NOT mention the town of Berwick as a separate entity.SandyRentool said:
The town was at war with someone due to boundary changes. Maybe France?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Not Berwick, no!SandyRentool said:
BerwickSunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, I googled, thanks!antifrank said:
Andorra.Sunil_Prasannan said:@antifrank
Great article, antifrank!
But I want to know which country was at war with Germany until 1958!
OK, following on from that -
Which part of the British Isles was at war with The Netherlands/Dutch Republic from 1651 to 1986?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
According to the US Cricket Association there are 200,000 Americans (edited to say 200,000 people living in America) playing cricket every weekend. That was in 2010.MTimT said:
Yes, and mostly from the subcontinent. My point was that someone (Richard Tyndall) had stated in the last thread that the US had the third most active cricket players in the world, behind India and Pakistan. I just can't see that as being true.AndyJS said:
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.
Richard, something is not squaring here. From the web site:Richard_Tyndall said:Re Cricket
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470796.stm
"Today, there are 30,000 registered players and about 200,000 people who play cricket of some sort at weekends, says Don Lockerbie, chief executive of the USA Cricket Association. Throw in an estimated 15 million fans, 950 clubs and 48 leagues, and the game probably hasn't been this healthy since that famous match in 1844."
"There are over 25,000 active players who are members of more than fifty leagues and 1,100 clubs across the United States."
and "With over 600 playing fields in the US"
So, to get to 200,000, each club would have to have 200 playing members, and each weekend 330 players would have to use each 'playing field'. Methinks the guy is exaggerating somewhat.0 -
I think they share an ability to sit above the political landscape and turn on a six-pence when required by the realities of power. When Merkel first became Chancellor she stood on a fairly radical liberal economic platform with a finance spokesperson advocating the introduction of a flat tax. Then when the expected victory turned into a virtual dead-heat she was able to force Schroeder out of office against his will while jettisoning most of her platform in order to form a grand coalition. They're both fairly inscrutable but, I believe, do have a sense of what they want to achieve.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't really see how Cameron and Merkel are similar - I think the German political system tends to produce figures completely unlike British politicians anyway. Merkel is someone inclined to look for agreement, and consensus. While Cameron made the best of the last coalition, he is not someone framed for his ability to work with the Conservative Right, for example. Cameron - like previous British political figures emphasises his differences, as FPTP leads figures to do. And while Merkel as I understand is genuinely popular in Germany, Cameron is essentially least bad of a pretty underwhelming bunch of political leaders in this country. I recall looking at many of his leader ratings, and a lot of them were in minus figures.williamglenn said:
The only British politician I would compare with Merkel is Cameron himself. Cooper is not someone I could imagine as a coalition builder or able to transcend her party.
Perhaps what they most have in common is an instinct for power.0 -
In the West Midlands Nuneaton, Warwickshire North and Cannock were all gained by Labour in 1992, although Wolverhampton South West was an easy Tory hold in the shape of Nick Budgen. In the East Midlands Sherwood was a Labour gain.0
-
The issue of "town boundaries" is always contentious-the issue of "village confines" even more so.Casino_Royale said:On home ownership, what strikes me is just how few have been built over the last 20 years. And that the few that have been built offer nothing like the living space of homes built up until c.1985.
I went back to the town I grew up in the weekend. I have been back many times, but this time I was explicitly looking at homes and house prices. With the view that my wife and I might like to move there to start a family.
Since the mid-1990s, the boundaries of the town have not changed *at all*. There has been some new (high density) housing development - one on the site of the old hospital, another on the site of an old pub and petrol station, and some redevelopment of property with very large gardens to accommodate 2 or 3 extra plots - but that's about it.
In the 1970s, this town had two huge new private sector developments (several hundred plots) of 3-4 detached family homes, all with decent front and back gardens, and garages. In fact, my parents bought one in 1980. But now, nothing like that.
Since then an extra six million people have moved to the UK, most settling in London and the south-east. My parents house, which they sold in 1999 for £140k, would now go for c.£420k.
Something has to give. In this case, it's the price. And it's pricing hundreds of thousands out.
Things are starting to change-not because the Local Councillors are waking up or because of political pressure but in no small part because the senior council officials are at long last starting to take an active role in identifying suitable sites for development or redevelopment.
The land is available-the issue is whether we choose to us it.
The biggest barrier to development going forwards will be the introduction of CIL (Community Investment Levy) charges.
Too many Council officials are seeing this as a way of filling the funding gap and have over priced the relevant charges. Unless addressed there will be a hiatus in planning applications whilst everyone finds the balance.0 -
0
-
My wider point is that it's a bit unfair for recent migrants to receive benefits without contributing, but for this country's older folk to have their benefits cut when they have contributed throughout their working lives, no?Alistair said:FTPT
But they contributed to support pensioners back when they were working not to support themselves now they are OAPS.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Your argument would be valid if pensioners didn't contribute to the Treasury throughout their younger working lives.notme said:
Obviously £143 is not the driver of comfort, its housing benefit, free tv license, winter fuel allowances, free bus passes and free prescriptions. Also importantly, if you are eligible for DLA when you enter retirement, you keep it, even if what was requiring the DLA is no longer there.richardDodd said:Not Me.As a pensioner i have to agree with you that pensioners live a very comfortable lifestyle I have to work hard at squandering the magnificent sum of of 143 pounds the Government gives me every week.
Pensioner benefits are paid out of current taxation - there is no pot.0 -
I think the key word there is "if". Personally, I don't think Scotland is much like Quebec.HYUFD said:Casino They will have a better leader and Scotland will have got more powers from the Smith Plans anyway, maybe more so have less need to express grievances. For comparison in the 1993 Canadian general election the Bloq Quebecois won 49% and 54 seats and the Liberals 33% and 19, at the 1997 Canadian general election the Bloc won 44 seats and 37% the Liberals 26 and 36%. If the SNP total fell by the same total as the BQ, and they were both around the same total, and went direct to Labour rather than the LDs and Tories Labour would pick up around 22 seats from the SNP
The key question SLAB need to answer is this: why would a Scottish voter want to eject a SNP MP to put a UK Labour MP in his or her place?
It doesn't necessarily bring a UK Labour government any closer, but it might lead to their local MP being less of an independent Scottish voice.
Until SLAB can find an answer good enough to this question to win over hundreds of thousands of Scots directly from the SNP, they are reliant on unionist tactical voting and confined in the 5-10 gains box, IMHO.0 -
"Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket." Well, they couldn't field at short leg, could they?0
-
It says "play cricket of some sort", so would include people who are not members of clubs?MTimT said:Richard_Tyndall said:
According to the US Cricket Association there are 200,000 Americans (edited to say 200,000 people living in America) playing cricket every weekend. That was in 2010.MTimT said:
Yes, and mostly from the subcontinent. My point was that someone (Richard Tyndall) had stated in the last thread that the US had the third most active cricket players in the world, behind India and Pakistan. I just can't see that as being true.AndyJS said:
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.
Richard, something is not squaring here. From the web site:Richard_Tyndall said:Re Cricket
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470796.stm
"Today, there are 30,000 registered players and about 200,000 people who play cricket of some sort at weekends, says Don Lockerbie, chief executive of the USA Cricket Association. Throw in an estimated 15 million fans, 950 clubs and 48 leagues, and the game probably hasn't been this healthy since that famous match in 1844."
"There are over 25,000 active players who are members of more than fifty leagues and 1,100 clubs across the United States."
and "With over 600 playing fields in the US"
So, to get to 200,000, each club would have to have 200 playing members, and each weekend 330 players would have to use each 'playing field'. Methinks the guy is exaggerating somewhat.0 -
Planning policy has been significantly loosened over the last three years or so, but the requirement for affordable homes, and various infrastructure levies push up the developer costs massively. I know in my area we have seen massive designation of land for housing over the next ten to fifteen years.
The land maybe designated but it does not follow that it will be developed anytime soon.
A large (500+home) scheme will typically take a minimum of 3 years to be completed from the initial development discussions-often a lot longer.0 -
Still think it is a massive exaggeration.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It says "play cricket of some sort", so would include people who are not members of clubs?MTimT said:Richard_Tyndall said:
According to the US Cricket Association there are 200,000 Americans (edited to say 200,000 people living in America) playing cricket every weekend. That was in 2010.MTimT said:
Yes, and mostly from the subcontinent. My point was that someone (Richard Tyndall) had stated in the last thread that the US had the third most active cricket players in the world, behind India and Pakistan. I just can't see that as being true.AndyJS said:
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.
Richard, something is not squaring here. From the web site:Richard_Tyndall said:Re Cricket
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470796.stm
"Today, there are 30,000 registered players and about 200,000 people who play cricket of some sort at weekends, says Don Lockerbie, chief executive of the USA Cricket Association. Throw in an estimated 15 million fans, 950 clubs and 48 leagues, and the game probably hasn't been this healthy since that famous match in 1844."
"There are over 25,000 active players who are members of more than fifty leagues and 1,100 clubs across the United States."
and "With over 600 playing fields in the US"
So, to get to 200,000, each club would have to have 200 playing members, and each weekend 330 players would have to use each 'playing field'. Methinks the guy is exaggerating somewhat.
Here is what Richardson, CEO of ICC says: "there are more active players in the US than in some Test-playing countries, but they are not progressing as we would like.”
NB 'some', not every country save India and Pakistan.0 -
The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
We were good at building these in the late Victorian era, the 1930s, the 1950s and up until the early 1980s.
The Conservatives still won elections. Why we can't do so now is a mystery to me.0 -
Where I live there are a few "new" housing developments, but they were all actually built in the 1980s. There is one "executive" development which was built around the year 2000 where the average price must be about £750k.0
-
Howabout this interesting cancer scandal in Detroit:TCPoliticalBetting said:
Envy of the world. Yet not copied outside the UK. GP forgot to tell consultant a key change in condition. 3 months later consultant stunned. GP only works 2 days in 5. GP looks to have a BMI closer to 35 than my 27.John_M said:
NHS Wales is a shambles. I was referred to a specialist in Oct 2014, with an 18 week waiting list (or so I was told). Based on this week's update, I'm unlikely to be seen until September 2015 at the earliest - this is not an unusual occurrence.TCPoliticalBetting said:"In Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down..." The voters in Wales have the pleasure of a Labour Govt, running the NHS and education. Both areas performing worse than England. Luckily for the UK Plaid are unlikely to duplicate the SNP. But the Conservatives might eat into Labour's vote at the GE. The 2016 Welsh Assembly elections are starting to look difficult for Labour?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/30/michigan-doctor-cancer-treatment-fraud-guilty
Are these cricketers mostly from the Subcontinental diaspora then? Just as many MLS fans are from Latin America? We will Anglicise US sport even if we have to use migrant communities to do so...AndyJS said:
Most of them are relatively new arrivals to the country. Hardly any longstanding Americans play cricket.MTimT said:FPT Cricket in the USA:
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally, if only because of school sports.0 -
AndyJS Though the Tories did at least win Wolverhampton SW in 2010, some Tory seats in 1992 like Birmingham Edgbaston did not elect a Tory MP in either 2010 or 2015. Mind you the Tories won Gower in 2015 which they had not won since 19060
-
The English have historically been pretty good with something called a free market which, if allowed to function, means that you don't need to divine what they want and then roll it out in some central plan.Casino_Royale said:The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.
0 -
As an Englishman, I'd much rather live in a high rise in the centre of town!Casino_Royale said:
The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
We were good at building these in the late Victorian era, the 1930s, the 1950s and up until the early 1980s.
The Conservatives still won elections. Why we can't do so now is a mystery to me.
Seriously: 26 year old singles want to live in high rise apartments, and 35 year olds with two small kids want to live in a house with a garden.
And if there is no demand people will not buy them. Let people vote with their wallets.0 -
The City Road is getting a lot of (very high priced) high density skyscrapers. They seem to be selling well.0
-
When people say they want to live in high-rises, I wonder if they mean posh, expensive ones in London or the ones more commonly referred to on the local council estate rife with crime? I'm a 21 year-old single, I'd much rather live in a house than any high-rise.0
-
And that in a nutshell is the problem;williamglenn said:
The English have historically been pretty good with something called a free market which, if allowed to function, means that you don't need to divine what they want and then roll it out in some central plan.Casino_Royale said:The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.
THE most regulated, State controlled market is land for housing.
THE most distorted market in terms of supply and demand is ....housing.
How you can reduce that regulation whilst protecting the landscape is the big conundrum.0 -
Obviously, not *every single* Englishman. That's true of any cultural generalisation! But even in my 20s, the ones I knew who wanted that mostly saw themselves aspiring to such a home.rcs1000 said:
As an Englishman, I'd much rather live in a high rise in the centre of town!Casino_Royale said:
The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
We were good at building these in the late Victorian era, the 1930s, the 1950s and up until the early 1980s.
The Conservatives still won elections. Why we can't do so now is a mystery to me.
Seriously: 26 year old singles want to live in high rise apartments, and 35 year olds with two small kids want to live in a house with a garden.
And if there is no demand people will not buy them. Let people vote with their wallets.
But I agree with you. You should let people vote with their wallets, and they will vote for a lot of detached family homes.0 -
Interesting documentary on BBC Scotland tonight about the fall of Labour. Well worth catching up with on the iplayer for those who might be thinking of risking their hard earned north of the border once again.
It was positively startling how many leaders Scottish Labour has got through since Dewar died. I lived through it but some, such as Gray, very rapidly slip from the memory.
It is quite clear that there will be an autonomous Scottish labour party. Whether this will be of any interest to the Scottish people was rather less so.
And if Scottish Labour pick Kezia Dugdale over Ken Macintosh then the only reasonable conclusion is that they have a death wish.0 -
Yes, I agree. But we don't have a free market. We have centrally controlled planning restrictions on land use.williamglenn said:
The English have historically been pretty good with something called a free market which, if allowed to function, means that you don't need to divine what they want and then roll it out in some central plan.Casino_Royale said:The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.
0 -
City Road once had a Northern line Tube station - it closed in 1922 after only 21 years.antifrank said:The City Road is getting a lot of (very high priced) high density skyscrapers. They seem to be selling well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Road_tube_station0 -
There are other interesting nuances too. Hipsters are happy in city apartments, but so too are many EU migrants who are used to apartment living rather than houses. Fewer young people want big gardens, just somewhere to park and somewhere to eat al fresco. The rosebed is dying out. Asian families in Leicester like a bit of frontage etc. Generally households are smaller and people want more living room space than bedrooms, but each child must have their own.rcs1000 said:
As an Englishman, I'd much rather live in a high rise in the centre of town!Casino_Royale said:
The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
We were good at building these in the late Victorian era, the 1930s, the 1950s and up until the early 1980s.
The Conservatives still won elections. Why we can't do so now is a mystery to me.
Seriously: 26 year old singles want to live in high rise apartments, and 35 year olds with two small kids want to live in a house with a garden.
And if there is no demand people will not buy them. Let people vote with their wallets.
The British home is evolving. What sells is what sells.0 -
The land maybe designated but it does not follow that it will be developed anytime soon.RepublicanTory said:
Planning policy has been significantly loosened over the last three years or so, but the requirement for affordable homes, and various infrastructure levies push up the developer costs massively. I know in my area we have seen massive designation of land for housing over the next ten to fifteen years.
A large (500+home) scheme will typically take a minimum of 3 years to be completed from the initial development discussions-often a lot longer.
It's up to the marketplace to determine the rate it builds houses, all a government can/should do is roll back things that delay and increase costs of development. There are legitimate areas of enquiry re land banking be developers. Buying up land they have no real intention of developing to stop others doing it. Not sure if a government should actively prevent it, but it could charge a levy (in the way that business rates are charged on empty commercial properties).
How long it takes from start to finish isnt really that important. They start and they are in the system.
Its like saying lets not trying to climb the mountain because the peak seems too far away.0 -
Mum won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden last yearfoxinsoxuk said:
Asian families in Leicester like a bit of frontage etc.rcs1000 said:
As an Englishman, I'd much rather live in a high rise in the centre of town!Casino_Royale said:
The English don't want to live in high-density skyscrapers in London. They want to buy decent-sized family detached homes with gardens. An Englishman's home is his castle: it's embedded deep within our culture psych.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. There is a complete absence of desire to tackle it. Unclear why they do not build lots of private skyscrapers in London for example.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is indeed a big threat to the Tories.The_Apocalypse said:
The ironic thing about the value of aspiration (in regard to the South) is that it is not necessarily a 'conservative value'. The Labour movement arose, because it wanted to help improve the lives of the most poorest in our society - in many ways, that in itself is aspirational. Right now, the debate on aspiration feels so individualistic - as oppose to a message on aspiration that can apply to the whole of society. Labour, can and should provide that message on aspiration. In our society, social mobility has declined in recent decades, telling us that meritocracy as we know it is being undermined.
One thing which I think threatens the Tories' in the long-term is the potential decline of home-ownership. At the heart of conservative aspiration is home-ownership. But increasingly, for my generation owning our own home feels like a fantasy, rather than a possible reality. With a low wage, low productivity economy, rising housing costs, and it being harder to get a mortgage, potentially the expansion of the middle classes is under threat. It is why, if I were a senior Conservative housing would be one of my biggest priorities. Not just morally, but politically.
We were good at building these in the late Victorian era, the 1930s, the 1950s and up until the early 1980s.
The Conservatives still won elections. Why we can't do so now is a mystery to me.
Seriously: 26 year old singles want to live in high rise apartments, and 35 year olds with two small kids want to live in a house with a garden.
And if there is no demand people will not buy them. Let people vote with their wallets. 0 -
O/T:
Interesting programme on the history of forensics on BBC4:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcfour0
