Categories
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.
0
Comments
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.
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
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.
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.
Why should anyone choose to continue to support something they no longer believe in. Let another time serving rubber stamper take his place.
'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.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/613067705806143489
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though I'd expect growth in the former to push the latter even more strongly towards the Conservatives.
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."
1. Seat losses in Wales
2. Seat losses of circa 20 from boundary changes.
No easy fixes either. There simply aren't 1 million+ council homes around to privatise anymore.
"I would not have gone into Iraq."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/jeb-bush-iraq-2016/
I'd say 5-10 is more realistic.
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.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chingford_railway_station_signage_2015.JPG
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?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/32713299
Pensioner benefits are paid out of current taxation - there is no pot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed
"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.
Perhaps what they most have in common is an instinct for power.
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.
Note that I did use the word "Isles"...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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.
But I agree with you. You should let people vote with their wallets, and they will vote for a lot of detached family homes.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Road_tube_station
The British home is evolving. What sells is what sells.
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.
Interesting programme on the history of forensics on BBC4:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcfour