On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
London was 60% white British in 2001, 45% white British in 2011. Could be below 40% now.
It's not either / or, though is it? Some individuals will be poor because they are lazy and make no effort or spurn the chances they are given. But it is certainly true that the way that society is structured can load the dice in favour of some groups and against others, no matter how hard the latter work.
There is nothing wrong with trying to change matters so that those who put the most effort in are properly rewarded and that each generation is given fair opportunities to succeed. What those of us who are opposed to Corbyn-style economics and politics are concerned about is that any fair society must have proper regard for individual rights, that the collective, the state should not be used to override individuals' rights to live their lives, own property, look after themselves and their families as they see fit and that people like him appear to have little regard for such principles.
Society is made up of the little platoons who do so much to make life for individuals and groups, free associations of people, worthwhile. Those who think that only the state, in the person of bureaucrats, can provide any worthwhile help are mistaken and can end up being oppressive and authoritarian. As ever, finding the right balance is key. Owen Jones is far too simplistic, both in his analysis and his answers.
Re the first point, I’m sympathetic to your point of view but I’d add that I think that there are more people in society right now trying to get on and can’t - I’m thinking of housing here (ironically the other subject of discussion in this thread) than are simply ‘lazy’ people who spurn chances.
While I don’t think *only* the state can provide worthwhile help, I’d look to it more to play a role in reducing inequality more than the private sector.
Re Corbynomics, yeah I’m not here to advocate for that. I posted the tweet more because of Jones’ specific analysis of individualism which caught my eye, rather than a great sympathy with his entire philosophy on life and his support for Corbyn.
Agree with your first point. There are a lot of people who do the right thing and still find life very difficult. We should reward such people and try and make life easier for them. Too often, though, the left punishes those who do the right thing and rewards those who don’t even try.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Part of that is because Theresa May comes over as rather old-fashioned in her social attitudes, in a way in which Cameron and Osborne didn't. I think this is more about perception than reality, but perception is of course the important thing here.
@matt_dathan: You win some, you lose some: Mark Garnier keeps his job as trade minister after Cabinet Office inquiry concludes he didn't break the ministerial code for asking his assistant to buy a sex toy
@matt_dathan: You win some, you lose some: Mark Garnier keeps his job as trade minister after Cabinet Office inquiry concludes he didn't break the ministerial code for asking his assistant to buy a sex toy
Clearly there is some wiggle room in the application of the Code.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Part of that is because Theresa May comes over as rather old-fashioned in her social attitudes, in a way in which Cameron and Osborne didn't. I think this is more about perception than reality, but perception is of course the important thing here.
Isn't Corbyn more socially conservative than Miliband and Blair? I get that impression.
Here are Tony T's assumptions about the background to 2018:
- Labour vote share and membership is expanding - Tories face a London identity crisis - LibDems battered but soldiering on - Greens in danger of being squeezed - UKIP evaporating - Independents elusive but may present some local danger
And a factoid in passing, lowest Borough turnout in 2014 was Kensington with just 30% voting
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I think Richard Nabavi’s critique of Jones’ arguments works well, and I think HYUFD raises some good points. But Ayn Rand? Yeah, never been convinced her views of the world....
The point is that many of us are worried about Momentum's particular philosophy on social justice, i.e. let's eat the rich, because that has worked out so well in revolutions past.
My personal alarm bell was triggered in the wake of Grenfell when I heard calls from some Momentum-ites for expropriation of private property - a sign of things to come.
[snip]
It was not just 'Momentum-ites': Corbyn himself advocated "requisitioning" property.
Of all the reasons people might want to vote for Corbyn, the idea that he will help individuals to buy houses is probably the most preposterous. They don’t believe in private property at all, you’ll be allocated your council house and had better be happy about it.
Those been screwed over by private landlords would jump at the chance of a secure tenancy at a sensible rent in a council house.
Why partisan? From that tweet thread it seemed as if an experience Dem yesterday convinced a GOP junior of something. The junior recanted, the judges considered it and made a decision
That seems reasonable - without examining the ballot yourself it's difficult to claim it's clearly wrong (which is what you would need for "nakedly partisan")
Because they looked at only one of the disqualified votes. Surely you have to look at all disqualified ballots rather than just one.
@matt_dathan: You win some, you lose some: Mark Garnier keeps his job as trade minister after Cabinet Office inquiry concludes he didn't break the ministerial code for asking his assistant to buy a sex toy
Clearly there is some wiggle room in the application of the Code.
He didn’t lie about it. Green would still be in his job if he hadn’t made untrue statements about what he had been told.
Morally, they both come across to me as sleazy pillocks.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I think Richard Nabavi’s critique of Jones’ arguments works well, and I think HYUFD raises some good points. But Ayn Rand? Yeah, never been convinced her views of the world....
The point is that many of us are worried about Momentum's particular philosophy on social justice, i.e. let's eat the rich, because that has worked out so well in revolutions past.
My personal alarm bell was triggered in the wake of Grenfell when I heard calls from some Momentum-ites for expropriation of private property - a sign of things to come.
[snip]
It was not just 'Momentum-ites': Corbyn himself advocated "requisitioning" property.
Of all the reasons people might want to vote for Corbyn, the idea that he will help individuals to buy houses is probably the most preposterous. They don’t believe in private property at all, you’ll be allocated your council house and had better be happy about it.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Yet for all that a third of under 30s and a majority of 45 to 55s voted Leave, more I would expect than would support the NHS being privatised. London young people are also more socially liberal and anti Brexit than say Midlands young people
Isn't Corbyn more socially conservative than Miliband and Blair? I get that impression.
Possibly, or perhaps it's more that he's less interested in social issues and instead concentrates on what he sees as economic exploitation and US imperialism.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Part of that is because Theresa May comes over as rather old-fashioned in her social attitudes, in a way in which Cameron and Osborne didn't. I think this is more about perception than reality, but perception is of course the important thing here.
Isn't Corbyn more socially conservative than Miliband and Blair? I get that impression.
It's not either / or, though is it? Some individuals will be poor because they are lazy and make no effort or spurn the chances they are given. But it is certainly true that the way that society is structured can load the dice in favour of some groups and against others, no matter how hard the latter work.
There is nothing wrong with trying to change matters so that those who put the most effort in are properly rewarded and that each generation is given fair opportunities to succeed. What those of us who are opposed to Corbyn-style economics and politics are concerned about is that any fair society must have proper regard for individual rights, that the collective, the state should not be used to override individuals' rights to live their lives, own property, look after themselves and their families as they see fit and that people like him appear to have little regard for such principles.
Society is made up of the little platoons who do so much to make life for individuals and groups, free associations of people, worthwhile. Those who think that only the state, in the person of bureaucrats, can provide any worthwhile help are mistaken and can end up being oppressive and authoritarian. As ever, finding the right balance is key. Owen Jones is far too simplistic, both in his analysis and his answers.
Re the first point, I’m sympathetic to your point of view but I’d add that I think that there are more people in society right now trying to get on and can’t - I’m thinking of housing here (ironically the other subject of discussion in this thread) than are simply ‘lazy’ people who spurn chances.
While I don’t think *only* the state can provide worthwhile help, I’d look to it more to play a role in reducing inequality more than the private sector.
Re Corbynomics, yeah I’m not here to advocate for that. I posted the tweet more because of Jones’ specific analysis of individualism which caught my eye, rather than a great sympathy with his entire philosophy on life and his support for Corbyn.
Agree with your first point. There are a lot of people who do the right thing and still find life very difficult. We should reward such people and try and make life easier for them. Too often, though, the left punishes those who do the right thing and rewards those who don’t even try.
There is nothing fair about that.
Who is this left , in Britain if you count Wilson as left it would be 1976.Since we were punished.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I think Richard Nabavi’s critique of Jones’ arguments works well, and I think HYUFD raises some good points. But Ayn Rand? Yeah, never been convinced her views of the world....
The point is that many of us are worried about Momentum's particular philosophy on social justice, i.e. let's eat the rich, because that has worked out so well in revolutions past.
My personal alarm bell was triggered in the wake of Grenfell when I heard calls from some Momentum-ites for expropriation of private property - a sign of things to come.
[snip]
It was not just 'Momentum-ites': Corbyn himself advocated "requisitioning" property.
Of all the reasons people might want to vote for Corbyn, the idea that he will help individuals to buy houses is probably the most preposterous. They don’t believe in private property at all, you’ll be allocated your council house and had better be happy about it.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Yet for all that a third of under 30s and a majority of 45 to 55s voted Leave, more I would expect than would support the NHS being privatised. London young people are also more socially liberal and anti Brexit than say Midlands young people
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
Tony then summed up, and, presenting to a party political audience, was wary of making predictions. He ran through a few Borough analyses. My own interpretation, reading between the lines, was:
- Expectation is that Labour will gain Boroughs, and one of the Tory Big Three could fall - Nevertheless Labour's GE surge may not necessarily carry through to the locals - Labour is likely to hold Harrow - Labour gaining Wandsworth is a big ask - LibDs within shooting distance of Kingston - UKIP collapse in Havering may hand Tories an opportunity - National politics remains so unpredictable and may blow all predictions out of the water
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Part of that is because Theresa May comes over as rather old-fashioned in her social attitudes, in a way in which Cameron and Osborne didn't. I think this is more about perception than reality, but perception is of course the important thing here.
Isn't Corbyn more socially conservative than Miliband and Blair? I get that impression.
What do you mean ? He is pro-life, pro-hanging, anti-immigrant ?
@matt_dathan: You win some, you lose some: Mark Garnier keeps his job as trade minister after Cabinet Office inquiry concludes he didn't break the ministerial code for asking his assistant to buy a sex toy
Clearly there is some wiggle room in the application of the Code.
He didn’t lie about it. Green would still be in his job if he hadn’t made untrue statements about what he had been told.
Morally, they both come across to me as sleazy pillocks.
Hard to understand why he did lie.Why did he just not comment , or say he could not confirm or deny the allegations , due to whatever .
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
A vanishingly small probability. A rather larger probability that Conservatives could lose them all. Although seems unlikely they could lose Westminster.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Part of that is because Theresa May comes over as rather old-fashioned in her social attitudes, in a way in which Cameron and Osborne didn't. I think this is more about perception than reality, but perception is of course the important thing here.
Isn't Corbyn more socially conservative than Miliband and Blair? I get that impression.
What do you mean ? He is pro-life, pro-hanging, anti-immigrant ?
There is nothing wrong with trying to change matters so that those who put the most effort in are properly rewarded and that each generation is given fair opportunities to succeed. What those of us who are opposed to Corbyn-style economics and politics are concerned about is that any fair society must have proper regard for individual rights, that the collective, the state should not be used to override individuals' rights to live their lives, own property, look after themselves and their families as they see fit and that people like him appear to have little regard for such principles.
Society is made up of the little platoons who do so much to make life for individuals and groups, free associations of people, worthwhile. Those who think that only the state, in the person of bureaucrats, can provide any worthwhile help are mistaken and can end up being oppressive and authoritarian. As ever, finding the right balance is key. Owen Jones is far too simplistic, both in his analysis and his answers.
Re the first point, I’m sympathetic to your point of view but I’d add that I think that there are more people in society right now trying to get on and can’t - I’m thinking of housing here (ironically the other subject of discussion in this thread) than are simply ‘lazy’ people who spurn chances.
While I don’t think *only* the state can provide worthwhile help, I’d look to it more to play a role in reducing inequality more than the private sector.
Re Corbynomics, yeah I’m not here to advocate for that. I posted the tweet more because of Jones’ specific analysis of individualism which caught my eye, rather than a great sympathy with his entire philosophy on life and his support for Corbyn.
Agree with your first point. There are a lot of people who do the right thing and still find life very difficult. We should reward such people and try and make life easier for them. Too often, though, the left punishes those who do the right thing and rewards those who don’t even try.
There is nothing fair about that.
Who is this left , in Britain if you count Wilson as left it would be 1976.Since we were punished.
The left which abolished the 10p starting rate of tax, for instance. That hurt those without much in favour of those with more.
Or the left which wanted to reward those inheriting a house at the expense of those without the promise of unearned wealth.
Or the left which imposed a higher rate of marginal tax (over 60%) on those earning just over £100K than those earning two or three times that.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Incidentally at the same event Ben Page from MORI gave a presentation about latest polling data from London. His key takeaways were:
- concern about inequality is at an all-time high - support for public spending cuts has halved since 2010 (54% to 22%, nationally) - public priorities are NHS and education - support for tax rises and more spending now at 63% (46% in 2009) - biggest age-differential in voting behaviour since MORI started doing age-breakdowns in 1979 - in London, housing is by far the most important issue (transport and crime are next - Londoners want to own their own home, to the extent that NIMBYism is now in retreat - Londoners are confident about the labour market, below age 55 - terrorism hasn't dented Londoners' belief in social cohesiveness
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
Of those, Bexley isn't impossible.
The Tories currently have 45 Bexley councillors to 15 for Labour and 3 for UKIP
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
HAVERING: - Unless the independents choose not to stand, I can't see a CON majority here. The NOC will continue.
HILLINGDON: Likely LAB gain. The poor results for both Nick Hurd and Boris Johnson are backed up by some quite tight Ward contests. A relatively small swing changes a lot of seats so I could see LAB gaining this Borough.
KENSINGTON & CHELSEA: Likely CON Hold - the likelihood of the anti-CON vote splitting between LAB, LDs and this new group gives CON a chance of holding on.
KINGSTON: Likely LD Gain. Ed Davey convincingly re-gained K&S in June and on that basis the LDs can be fancied to regain the Borough. LAB can never be ruled out in Norbiton.
SUTTON: Toss up between CON gain and LD hold: while you might think the LDs are secure in their suburban fortress which they have run for over 30 years, I'm less confident. The Sutton & Cheam area is firmly back in the blue camp and there will no doubt be a lot of effort to try and win seats like Wallington North and South and others in Tom Brake's constituency.
WANDSWORTH: Toss up between CON hold and LAB gain: The loss of Battersea was a big blow for the Conservatives and Putney is far from safe for Justine Greening. The Thamesfield by-election was in the safest Ward in the Borough and while a Labour takeover is a long shot, it's not inconceivable.
WESTMINSTER: Toss up between CON hold and LAB gain: This would be the shock of the night but it's not inconceivable. The GE result makes Mark Field's seat a marginal and Labour has always had strength in parts of the Borough. Unlikely but not impossible.
Barney will stay Tory because of the Jewish vote, the Tories won all 3 seats on the borough at the general election.
The Tories also won 2/3 of the seats in Hillingdon in June. Labour have an outside chance in Wandsworth and Westminster but need to gain more thsn 10 seats in both boroughs to won control which is probably too big an ask
The three Barnet seats were very marginal though. I would be more surprised to see Labour win Wandsworth - a borough which since the 1980s has voted Tory more solidly at Local elections than Parliamentary elections.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
I'd expect Barnet, Hillingdon and Wandsworth to be Con holds. The Conservatives are stronger in those boroughs than in 1994-1998, when the first two were narrowly lost, and the last was held.
Off topic - Was thinking of buying an Ether now they're below £600 but the fees seem horrendous, EUR -> GBP bank cut conversion + 4%. Fees seem out of all line compared to traditional stocks and shares. Too far behind the game before I even start for my liking !
Off topic - Was thinking of buying an Ether now they're below £600 but the fees seem horrendous, EUR -> GBP bank cut conversion + 4%. Fees seem out of all line compared to traditional stocks and shares. Too far behind the game before I even start for my liking !
Is that one of those new coins? Aren't those even more ponzi than bitcoin?
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
I'd expect Barnet, Hillingdon and Wandsworth to be Con holds. The Conservatives are stronger in those boroughs than in 1994-1998, when the first two were narrowly lost, and the last was held.
Barnet is the one to watch. Outside chance of loss of control.
Off topic - Was thinking of buying an Ether now they're below £600 but the fees seem horrendous, EUR -> GBP bank cut conversion + 4%. Fees seem out of all line compared to traditional stocks and shares. Too far behind the game before I even start for my liking !
Is that one of those new coins? Aren't those even more ponzi than bitcoin?
Ethereum is fine, obviously its value may go down as well as up ! I'm not worried about that aspect.. Just trying to find a place with reasonable fees, and I don't consider coinbase EUR -> GBP + 4% on each side reasonable.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
Not much different to Major in my view.
Blair was more neoliberal than Major e.g. from 1997 to 2001 he took spending as a percentage of GDP down to about 35%, where Thatcher had left it in 1990. Major increased it to close to 40% by 1997. It was only Brown who really pushed higher spending in the New Labour years.
To cyclefree Blair and Brown are left punishers it, is a view I suppose but utter bollox.
You clearly didn’t know elderly pensioners bewildered to find that their income tax rate had gone up by 100%. In what way was that fair? Why should people earning some of the lowest incomes in the country be punished in this way just so that Brown could pull off a clever stunt against the Tories?
Why was Corbyn advocating a policy at the last election which favoured those with rich parents hoping to inherit their parents’ houses? What is fair about such a policy?
Why did Darling impose the highest marginal tax rate on people who do not earn the highest incomes? What is fair about that?
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
Of those, Bexley isn't impossible.
The Tories currently have 45 Bexley councillors to 15 for Labour and 3 for UKIP
I believe Labour did win Bexley back in 1971 - but then again the Tories did win Hackney, Islington and Lambeth in 1968!
I'd expect Barnet, Hillingdon and Wandsworth to be Con holds. The Conservatives are stronger in those boroughs than in 1994-1998, when the first two were narrowly lost, and the last was held.
Barnet is the one to watch. Outside chance of loss of control.
Yes, and of course, they only lead Labour 32/30. Overall the Conservatives do a lot better in Finchley and Hendon than in the Blair years, but worse in Chipping Barnet.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I think Richard Nabavi’s critique of Jones’ arguments works well, and I think HYUFD raises some good points. But Ayn Rand? Yeah, never been convinced her views of the world....
The point is that many of us are worried about Momentum's particular philosophy on social justice, i.e. let's eat the rich, because that has worked out so well in revolutions past.
My personal alarm bell was triggered in the wake of Grenfell when I heard calls from some Momentum-ites for expropriation of private property - a sign of things to come.
[snip]
It was not just 'Momentum-ites': Corbyn himself advocated "requisitioning" property.
Of all the reasons people might want to vote for Corbyn, the idea that he will help individuals to buy houses is probably the most preposterous. They don’t believe in private property at all, you’ll be allocated your council house and had better be happy about it.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
Yet for all that a third of under 30s and a majority of 45 to 55s voted Leave, more I would expect than would support the NHS being privatised. London young people are also more socially liberal and anti Brexit than say Midlands young people
I said a ‘fair amount’ not all under 55s. I was deliberately careful with the wording as well....
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
At 18:00 local time (17:00 GMT) turnout was 68%, the Catalan authorities said - about 5% higher than the corresponding figure for the 2015 regional election.
One of the big stories of this election may be a surge in the turnout. BBC journalists have been watching the lines outside polling stations.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
This is correct. Bexley and Havering are simply too Brexity to be captured by Labour, while Bromley is affluent and has significant semi-rural parts.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
Of those, Bexley isn't impossible.
The Tories currently have 45 Bexley councillors to 15 for Labour and 3 for UKIP
I believe Labour did win Bexley back in 1971 - but then again the Tories did win Hackney, Islington and Lambeth in 1968!
Labour won it in 2002, despite finishing 10% behind the Coservatives, bizarrely. But, I don't think the same trick can be repeated.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
Not much different to Major in my view.
Blair was more neoliberal than Major e.g. from 1997 to 2001 he took spending as a percentage of GDP down to about 35%, where Thatcher had left it in 1990. Major increased it to close to 40% by 1997. It was only Brown who really pushed higher spending in the New Labour years.
But that is likely to have been due to the commitment to stick to Kenneth Clarke's spending plans and owed a lot to Brown . Interesting too that Clarke later indicated that he would not have stuck to his own plans had the Tories been re-elected in 1997.
I'd expect Barnet, Hillingdon and Wandsworth to be Con holds. The Conservatives are stronger in those boroughs than in 1994-1998, when the first two were narrowly lost, and the last was held.
Barnet is the one to watch. Outside chance of loss of control.
Yes, and of course, they only lead Labour 32/30. Overall the Conservatives do a lot better in Finchley and Hendon than in the Blair years, but worse in Chipping Barnet.
It will be the Jewish vote which likely saves the Tories in Barnet
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
Of those, Bexley isn't impossible.
The Tories currently have 45 Bexley councillors to 15 for Labour and 3 for UKIP
I believe Labour did win Bexley back in 1971 - but then again the Tories did win Hackney, Islington and Lambeth in 1968!
London demographics have changed a lot since then, especially in inner London and Bexley was one of the few London boroughs which voted Leave
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
So the rich just avoid it more, and middle-classes get hit harder?
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Turnout in Catalonia now up by 5 percentage points on 2015. Looks like we’re heading to 80%+, which is what the opinion polls were indicating.
That is encouraging.
Biggest rise in turnout is in Barcelona, which should favour the pro-Spain bloc. These will people who have never voted in Catalan elections before, so may be less likely to back independence.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
This is correct. Bexley and Havering are simply too Brexity to be captured by Labour, while Bromley is affluent and has significant semi-rural parts.
Labour have never won a seat in Bromley though the Liberals did win the Orpington by election in the early 1960s
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
This is correct. Bexley and Havering are simply too Brexity to be captured by Labour, while Bromley is affluent and has significant semi-rural parts.
In the three Bexley constituencies, the GE votes split Tory 71,000 to Labour 62,000. To be fair one of the seats covers a chunk of Greenwich as well. But the Tory majorities in Bexley aren't all as impregnable as some other Boroughs.
Why partisan? From that tweet thread it seemed as if an experience Dem yesterday convinced a GOP junior of something. The junior recanted, the judges considered it and made a decision
That seems reasonable - without examining the ballot yourself it's difficult to claim it's clearly wrong (which is what you would need for "nakedly partisan")
Because they looked at only one of the disqualified votes. Surely you have to look at all disqualified ballots rather than just one.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
There was not much difference between ABs and C2s there and in fact the Tories got a lower percentage of 18 to 34s than those in that group who voted Leave suggesting social conservatism alone was not to blame
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
So the rich just avoid it more, and middle-classes get hit harder?
Not sure that will be popular.
Sadly the problem with politics nowadays is that what is necessary isn't popular and what is popular isn't necessary.
On topic, in November Tony Travers gave a closed presentation to London councillors about the 2018 elections, and I hope I am not breaking confidences by sharing his key points.
Here are the first batch:
Historical context - in 1982 London had 20 Tory administrations to Labour's 12
- In 2017 GE, Labour's 55% vote share was the largest won in London by any party ever - Until 1997, the London party vote shares were the closest to the national of any UK region - in the 2000s Labour polled >+5% in London compared to nationally, in 2010s >+10% - Tory vote share in Borough elections, 1978= 50%, 1988/92= 40%, 2010/14= 30%
Queen Mary Uni now doing London local election polls (three more planned before May) - Oct 2017 result: Lab 41%, Con 22%, LibD 9% (don't know 17%)
London Demographics: - median age now below 35, less than 12% of Londoners are of state pension age - by 2040s London will be majority black/ethnic minority - 12% of the electorate in 2018 will be EU nationals
The Midlands are now the key swing region, not London. Indeed apart from the North East, London is now more pro Labour than any other region of the UK
There is a small probability that we could win all the 32 boroughs.
There is no way Labour will win Bromley or Bexley or Havering
This is correct. Bexley and Havering are simply too Brexity to be captured by Labour, while Bromley is affluent and has significant semi-rural parts.
In the three Bexley constituencies, the GE votes split Tory 71,000 to Labour 62,000. To be fair one of the seats covers a chunk of Greenwich as well. But the Tory majorities in Bexley aren't all as impregnable as some other Boroughs.
Yes - the Erith /Thamesmead seat is lots of Greenwich. The rest of Bexley will be solidly Conservative as always. It barely counts as a London borough - really more Kent than anythin else.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
Not much different to Major in my view.
Blair was more neoliberal than Major e.g. from 1997 to 2001 he took spending as a percentage of GDP down to about 35%, where Thatcher had left it in 1990. Major increased it to close to 40% by 1997. It was only Brown who really pushed higher spending in the New Labour years.
But that is likely to have been due to the commitment to stick to Kenneth Clarke's spending plans and owed a lot to Brown . Interesting too that Clarke later indicated that he would not have stuck to his own plans had the Tories been re-elected in 1997.
The 1992 to 1997 Major and Clarke government was more pro state than the 1997 to 2001 Labour government in many areas
Turnout in Catalonia now up by 5 percentage points on 2015. Looks like we’re heading to 80%+, which is what the opinion polls were indicating.
That is encouraging.
Biggest rise in turnout is in Barcelona, which should favour the pro-Spain bloc. These will people who have never voted in Catalan elections before, so may be less likely to back independence.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
Far better to reduce it (say to 10%) but get rid of all the exemptions. A 40 or 50% or higher tax rate makes it worthwhile to find ways round it. A 10% one does not - or much much less so.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
... or reduce immigration.
Yet our fruit and veg needs to be picked, our coffee served, and our tables waited upon, and unemployment is at a record low. And the pensions of the coming army of retired folk need to be paid for by someone.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
On your IHT and wealth tax proposals even fewer people will be able to buy as for most young people on an average salary the only way they can pay a deposit is through parental support. Reducing immigration and building more homes is far more sensible as a way to get young people on the housing ladder.
Though your proposals to restrict foreign property purchases, increase protection for tendencies and have increased penalties for unoccupied properties are sensible
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I think Richard Nabavi’s critique of Jones’ arguments works well, and I think HYUFD raises some good points. But Ayn Rand? Yeah, never been convinced her views of the world....
The point is that many of us are worried about Momentum's particular philosophy on social justice, i.e. let's eat the rich, because that has worked out so well in revolutions past.
My personal alarm bell was triggered in the wake of Grenfell when I heard calls from some Momentum-ites for expropriation of private property - a sign of things to come.
[snip]
It was not just 'Momentum-ites': Corbyn himself advocated "requisitioning" property.
Of all the reasons people might want to vote for Corbyn, the idea that he will help individuals to buy houses is probably the most preposterous. They don’t believe in private property at all, you’ll be allocated your council house and had better be happy about it.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
The ideal government for pro-European social liberals is a minority Labour administration propped up by the Liberals, Greens and possibly the SNP. The smaller parties would act to prevent the Corbynites from heading into a socialist fantasy land, while admirable and popular Labour policies such as rail nationalisation would still have a chance of happening.
There was not much difference between ABs and C2s there and in fact the Tories got a lower percentage of 18 to 34s than those in that group who voted Leave suggesting social conservatism alone was not to blame
I’m not saying it’s the only thing to blame, but that’s it’s one of the main things to blame.
See John Curtice’s analysis here: ‘This point aside, what clearly emerges from our analysis is that Labour’s advance in the 2015 election was strongest not in left-wing Britain but rather in socially liberal Britain, a section of the country that is distinguished not so much by class and occupation as by education and, above all, age. Indeed, the age divide in the level of support for Labour is now bigger than the class divide – over half (53%) of the under forties voted Labour compared with just 27% of the over sixties.
Labour’s advance in June then does not simply lie in the popularity of the more left-wing stance that the party adopted. Indeed, that may not have been particularly important at all. Rather, in an election in which Brexit and immigration were also central issues, Labour’s advance was strongest amongst those who were keenest on staying in the EU and those who were least concerned about immigration.’
Turnout in Catalonia now up by 5 percentage points on 2015. Looks like we’re heading to 80%+, which is what the opinion polls were indicating.
That is encouraging.
Biggest rise in turnout is in Barcelona, which should favour the pro-Spain bloc. These will people who have never voted in Catalan elections before, so may be less likely to back independence.
A reasonable hypothesis, though we will still have to see. The landscape has changed a bit since the last election in terms of the parties on offer particular the absence of JxSí as a combined force
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Turnout in Catalonia now up by 5 percentage points on 2015. Looks like we’re heading to 80%+, which is what the opinion polls were indicating.
That is encouraging.
Biggest rise in turnout is in Barcelona, which should favour the pro-Spain bloc. These will people who have never voted in Catalan elections before, so may be less likely to back independence.
That may be good news for Ciudadanos.
On 80%+ turnout I’d expect both Cs and PSC vote to go up, if the opinion polling has been accurate. Cs will be the biggest pro-Spain party in the new Parliament. That’s quite an achievement.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
The only way the pension entitlements of the boomer generation can be afforded, other than default, is by expanding the working age population until the bulge has passed.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
The only way the pension entitlements of the boomer generation can be afforded, other than default, is by expanding the working age population until the bulge has passed.
They should have been raised the retirement age years ago. That would ease the burden considerably, although it would be a brave decision.
Build more houses. Increasing the supply will help reduce prices.
Only very slowly, and at the margin. Despite politicians' unwillingness to address the issue, the key is making property unattractive as an investment, other than as your own home. To give some credit to odious Osbo, even he grasped that this was the essential problem.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
I imagine they’re more likely to be obese, they’re less active, and vegetarianism =/= healthy.
Comments
There is nothing fair about that.
- Labour vote share and membership is expanding
- Tories face a London identity crisis
- LibDems battered but soldiering on
- Greens in danger of being squeezed
- UKIP evaporating
- Independents elusive but may present some local danger
And a factoid in passing, lowest Borough turnout in 2014 was Kensington with just 30% voting
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/943495832485101569
Morally, they both come across to me as sleazy pillocks.
- Expectation is that Labour will gain Boroughs, and one of the Tory Big Three could fall
- Nevertheless Labour's GE surge may not necessarily carry through to the locals
- Labour is likely to hold Harrow
- Labour gaining Wandsworth is a big ask
- LibDs within shooting distance of Kingston
- UKIP collapse in Havering may hand Tories an opportunity
- National politics remains so unpredictable and may blow all predictions out of the water
Or the left which wanted to reward those inheriting a house at the expense of those without the promise of unearned wealth.
Or the left which imposed a higher rate of marginal tax (over 60%) on those earning just over £100K than those earning two or three times that.
- concern about inequality is at an all-time high
- support for public spending cuts has halved since 2010 (54% to 22%, nationally)
- public priorities are NHS and education
- support for tax rises and more spending now at 63% (46% in 2009)
- biggest age-differential in voting behaviour since MORI started doing age-breakdowns in 1979
- in London, housing is by far the most important issue (transport and crime are next
- Londoners want to own their own home, to the extent that NIMBYism is now in retreat
- Londoners are confident about the labour market, below age 55
- terrorism hasn't dented Londoners' belief in social cohesiveness
Blair and Brown are left punishers it, is a view I suppose but utter bollox.
Under a one nation approach some have wealth and others don't, but all have an obligation to society as a whole
In a meritocracy the poor can be perceived to deserve it because of their own failure
Fees seem out of all line compared to traditional stocks and shares. Too far behind the game before I even start for my liking !
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
Just trying to find a place with reasonable fees, and I don't consider coinbase EUR -> GBP + 4% on each side reasonable.
Why was Corbyn advocating a policy at the last election which favoured those with rich parents hoping to inherit their parents’ houses? What is fair about such a policy?
Why did Darling impose the highest marginal tax rate on people who do not earn the highest incomes? What is fair about that?
One of the big stories of this election may be a surge in the turnout. BBC journalists have been watching the lines outside polling stations.
So the rich just avoid it more, and middle-classes get hit harder?
Not sure that will be popular.
... or reduce immigration.
Though your proposals to restrict foreign property purchases, increase protection for tendencies and have increased penalties for unoccupied properties are sensible
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
See John Curtice’s analysis here: ‘This point aside, what clearly emerges from our analysis is that Labour’s advance in the 2015 election was strongest not in left-wing Britain but rather in socially liberal Britain, a section of the country that is distinguished not so much by class and occupation as by education and, above all, age. Indeed, the age divide in the level of support for Labour is now bigger than the class divide – over half (53%) of the under forties voted Labour compared with just 27% of the over sixties.
Labour’s advance in June then does not simply lie in the popularity of the more left-wing stance that the party adopted. Indeed, that may not have been particularly important at all. Rather, in an election in which Brexit and immigration were also central issues, Labour’s advance was strongest amongst those who were keenest on staying in the EU and those who were least concerned about immigration.’
http://natcen.ac.uk/blog/who-voted-labour-in-2017
Good enough.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.