Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Local Elections 2018 : By-Elections Review and Forecast

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Local Elections 2018 : By-Elections Review and Forecast

Since the local elections in 2014 in London, there have been a total of 75 by-elections to the 32 councils in the capital and overall those by-elections have shown that the mainstream parties are clawing back support from the smaller parties.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    First! Look at that CON surge.... :D
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,249
    @jessicaelgot: The Polish translator just called Theresa May "Madame Brexit." Even made the PM giggle.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,459
    Thanks Harry!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,249
    @carldinnen: May on police actions in the Green case "I share the concerns made across the political spectrum ... and expect that to be properly investigated."
  • Scott_P said:

    @carldinnen: May on police actions in the Green case "I share the concerns made across the political spectrum ... and expect that to be properly investigated."

    New Order - Everything's Gone Green:

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746
    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.

    HARROW: - Likely Lab Hold. Can't see the CON being strong enough to break the majority.

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    Thanks for your and Harry's predictions. Aren't you in agreement on the last two, a likely con hold?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.

    HARROW: - Likely Lab Hold. Can't see the CON being strong enough to break the majority.

    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.

    I agree with you that by looking at isolated by-elections early in the Corbyn period, Harry is understating the likely Labour surge in London. Barnet in particular looks very vulnerable for the Tories, despite the Jewish dimension. Labour will keep Harrow. Kensington depends on whether the non-Conservatives are grown up enough to co-ordinate where they stand and campaign. I would expect the LibDems to be in play in Kingston and Richmond, and hold Sutton. Wandsworth could be a surprise, after Labour's good showing in Battersea. In Boroughs where the Tories are currently the principal opposition, I would expect them to lose seats.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,359
    Labour could win 100% of the seats on a number of councils such as Islington, Greenwich, Barking&Dagenham, Newham, Lambeth, Southwark, Camden, Haringey, Tower Hamlets, Hackney.
  • If next May is like the last general election then the Tories are in for the dockside hooker treatment in London.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Cheers for this, Mr. Hayfield.

    Mr. P, sounds a bit like Madame Hydra.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,056

    If next May is like the last general election then the Tories are in for the dockside hooker treatment in London.

    And oddly, it might not be too bad for them. The rest of the country might look at what London's doing and think twice about copying them.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,444

    If next May is like the last general election then the Tories are in for the dockside hooker treatment in London.

    But the capital's largest paper (free) is edited by a staunch Conservative - does that mean the dead tree press are no longer influential or is it just the current incumbent who doesn't sway opinion ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017
    Looking at the results forecast for London above the Tories may do better than expected, holding almost all the London boroughs they are defending. Labour meanwhile could fail to make any gains (Though partly explained by their already holding 20 out of 32 London boroughs).

    It may well be the LDs who have the most to celebrate in May if they do indeed gain Richmond Upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames from the Tories as forecast above. They may also do well outside London too e.g. if they can capitalise on opposition to local plans in the Home Counties councils up for election next year
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624

    If next May is like the last general election then the Tories are in for the dockside hooker treatment in London.

    Labour already hold boroughs like Croydon and Enfield where they gained seats in June anyway so have little more to gain and in target boroughs like Barnet the Tories held all 3 Parliamentary seats at the general election as the Jewish vote hates Corbyn
  • TGOHF said:

    If next May is like the last general election then the Tories are in for the dockside hooker treatment in London.

    But the capital's largest paper (free) is edited by a staunch Conservative - does that mean the dead tree press are no longer influential or is it just the current incumbent who doesn't sway opinion ?
    The former. The previous incumbent endorsed Zac Goldsmith in the Mayoral election and he still lost.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,306
    Scott_P said:
    Yes, I could.

    Whether you want to hear it or not is a different matter.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,249
    dr_spyn said:

    Cue for incoming rants.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Scott_P said:
    It's a common thing to do in first person shooter games ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    HYUFD said:

    Looking at the results forecast for London above the Tories may do better than expected, holding almost all the London boroughs they are defending. Labour meanwhile could fail to make any gains (Though partly explained by their already holding 20 out of 32 London boroughs).

    It may well be the LDs who have the most to celebrate in May if they do indeed gain Richmond Upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames from the Tories as forecast above. They may also do well outside London too e.g. if they can capitalise on opposition to local plans in the Home Counties councils up for election next year

    The first paragraph will almost certainly prove to be huff and puff.

    London has an educated, younger and ethnically and internationally diverse population. The Tories are presiding over Brexit and the housing crisis. And Labour has a massive activist base.

    That's all you need to know.
  • 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:

  • Just checking on the 2018 locals, I have the chance to vote twice. Hurrah!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Looking at the results forecast for London above the Tories may do better than expected, holding almost all the London boroughs they are defending. Labour meanwhile could fail to make any gains (Though partly explained by their already holding 20 out of 32 London boroughs).

    It may well be the LDs who have the most to celebrate in May if they do indeed gain Richmond Upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames from the Tories as forecast above. They may also do well outside London too e.g. if they can capitalise on opposition to local plans in the Home Counties councils up for election next year

    The first paragraph will almost certainly prove to be huff and puff.

    London has an educated, younger and ethnically and internationally diverse population. The Tories are presiding over Brexit and the housing crisis. And Labour has a massive activist base.

    That's all you need to know.
    Yes but those voters all largely voted Labour in 2014 anyway when Labour comfortably won the London elections. To win solid Tory boroughs like Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hillingdon and Barnet as they are aiming to do is a big ask especially as most of the Tory voters in those boroughs dislike Corbyn even if they did vote Remain and indeed even after the general election the Tories still have MPs in all 4 of those boroughs
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 998

    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:

    Not particularly interesting or original. Tories think everyone gets their just desserts, Labour think no one is remotely responsible for their own life. Yawn.
  • Scott_P said:
    What could be more festive?

    There's a couple of crackers on Poundlands social media, including the elf having a light saber fight with a dildo.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    Scott_P said:
    Teabagging, it's something people do/did in Call of Duty.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Looking at the results forecast for London above the Tories may do better than expected, holding almost all the London boroughs they are defending. Labour meanwhile could fail to make any gains (Though partly explained by their already holding 20 out of 32 London boroughs).

    It may well be the LDs who have the most to celebrate in May if they do indeed gain Richmond Upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames from the Tories as forecast above. They may also do well outside London too e.g. if they can capitalise on opposition to local plans in the Home Counties councils up for election next year

    The first paragraph will almost certainly prove to be huff and puff.

    London has an educated, younger and ethnically and internationally diverse population. The Tories are presiding over Brexit and the housing crisis. And Labour has a massive activist base.

    That's all you need to know.
    Yes but those voters all largely voted Labour in 2014 anyway when Labour comfortably won the London elections. To win solid Tory boroughs like Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hillingdon and Barnet as they are aiming to do is a big ask especially as most of the Tory voters in those boroughs dislike Corbyn even if they did vote Remain and indeed even after the general election the Tories still have MPs in all 4 of those boroughs
    Once again, we'll just have to wait and see. I expect you to be quite disappointed come next May. You make a fair point that Labour doesn't have many Boroughs to gain, but they will nevertheless pick up a fair tranche of seats from the Tories across most of outer London.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624

    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
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    Yep. Only our friend Mr HY can't see it coming.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,047
    edited December 2017

    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:

    Yawn. The normal Guardian (and especially Owen Jones) nonsense, misrepresenting what their opponents say, making absurd attacks on their motives, and ignoring inconvenient evidence.

    To take one example, Owen Jones claims that the 'core Tory project' of 'individualism' (which he's invented) erodes a sense that the majority have shared interests and aspirations. Clearly he's never read anything David Cameron ever wrote, or any of Theresa May's speeches, or indeed Maggie Thatcher's very famous Women's Own interview:

    There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate

    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,533
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's a common thing to do in first person shooter games ;)
    I've never heard porn described that way. But I guess it's appropriate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.

    HARROW: - Likely Lab Hold. Can't see the CON being strong enough to break the majority.

    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
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 900

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    Yep. Only our friend Mr HY can't see it coming.
    No. I never said London was going to swing Tory, I just made the point Labour already are in control of over 60% of London borough councils anyway. The Tories can fail to win the likes of Enfield and Croydon and Redbridge (seats where they lost MPs or failed to make hoped for gains in June) and still make no net losses as they are already the opposition party in those boroughs.

    Instead the Tories just need to defend boroughs like Wandsworth and Westminster which even Thatcher and Major held at the height of the poll tax backlash or the arrival of New Labour. If the Tories do lose councils they are more likely to be losing them to the LDs than Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Looking at the results forecast for London above the Tories may do better than expected, holding almost all the London boroughs they are defending. Labour meanwhile could fail to make any gains (Though partly explained by their already holding 20 out of 32 London boroughs).

    It may well be the LDs who have the most to celebrate in May if they do indeed gain Richmond Upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames from the Tories as forecast above. They may also do well outside London too e.g. if they can capitalise on opposition to local plans in the Home Counties councils up for election next year

    The first paragraph will almost certainly prove to be huff and puff.

    London has an educated, younger and ethnically and internationally diverse population. The Tories are presiding over Brexit and the housing crisis. And Labour has a massive activist base.

    That's all you need to know.
    Yes but those voters all largely voted Labour in 2014 anyway when Labour comfortably won the London elections. To win solid Tory boroughs like Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hillingdon and Barnet as they are aiming to do is a big ask especially as most of the Tory voters in those boroughs dislike Corbyn even if they did vote Remain and indeed even after the general election the Tories still have MPs in all 4 of those boroughs
    Once again, we'll just have to wait and see. I expect you to be quite disappointed come next May. You make a fair point that Labour doesn't have many Boroughs to gain, but they will nevertheless pick up a fair tranche of seats from the Tories across most of outer London.
    They may pick up more seats but that would not change things unless they win enough to gain control of more boroughs
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    The Tories lost London even in 2015 when they won an overall majority, that does not mean individual London boroughs cannot be saved
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,743
    edited December 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    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....
  • There is a useful Wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2018 which list all the authorities and mayors subject to election.

    Is the delayed election for the greater Sheffield (now less than it was planned to be) mayor still going ahead in May 2018?
  • Ms. Apocalypse, reminds me of a university lecturer who pithily summed up sociology as pretty much blaming all the bad things on society.

    The most interesting thing in that is the suggestion, asserted as fact, that the majority think like Labour and the Conservatives are there for a minority.

    Also, inequality isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. What matters is that the poorest have the basic necessities of life. That's why a fixation on inequality or the ever-shifting bullshit goalposts of 'relative poverty' (a statistical perversion invented so that poverty will apparently exist even when everybody has enough money for all life's necessities and luxuries on top) is a nonsense.

    The inference that the wealthy have done something wrong due to a 'rigged system' or for having the temerity to be born into a wealthy family is an infantile appeal to envy. Not doing well? Blame those rich bastards. They're cheats, you know. None of them got there on merit (of course, some do just inherit a fortune, but most people work for their money).

    And look at socialism, and it's record. Or look at it in action right now. Venezuela, where everyone's losing weight due to starving to death, and the opposition has been banned from the next election. Mmm, socialist.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.



    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.


    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
    In Redbridge the identifying Jewish population has declined dramatically, due to low birth rate, relatively high death rate (children who arrived in the 30s and 40s, and a post-war baby boom), the growth of irreligion, and out-migration from London, particularly to Essex. I don't know Barnet so well, but see that latest GLA estimates put the Jewish population down to about 12-13% in the Borough as of 2014-15, probably lower by now. Most of whom voted Tory last time.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    The Tories lost London even in 2015 when they won an overall majority, that does not mean individual London boroughs cannot be saved
    The tide has shifted since then, three more years of private landlords leeching off the working man/woman, fewer home owners and the governing party implementing a locally unpopular policy (Brexit).

    Until the Conservative party is seen to be on the side of people earning between £26-45k and ensuring people who have that level of income can afford to buy or eventually buy their own flat/house then London is not going to vote for us. I've only been saying it for 10 years.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,365
    edited December 2017
    Not terror related report the bbc...not quite what Australian police have said and what are th chances...

    The man who deliberately drove a car into a crowd in Melbourne is a drug user with mental health issues but no known terrorism links, police say. The Australian citizen of Afghan descent was taken into custody after a struggle at the scene of the incident.

    A second man, 24, was arrested after being seen filming the incident. He had a bag of knives with him, police added.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    The Tories lost London even in 2015 when they won an overall majority, that does not mean individual London boroughs cannot be saved
    The tide has shifted since then, three more years of private landlords leeching off the working man/woman, fewer home owners and the governing party implementing a locally unpopular policy (Brexit).

    Until the Conservative party is seen to be on the side of people earning between £26-45k and ensuring people who have that level of income can afford to buy or eventually buy their own flat/house then London is not going to vote for us. I've only been saying it for 10 years.
    I don't disagree but of course social change and the shift of the white working and lower middle class to Kent and Essex and the increasing ethnic makeup of London also favour Labour in the capital.

    Yet in terms of the borough elections next year the Tories are only defending 9 out of the 32 boroughs up for election so there is every chance they can defend most if not all of those especially with national polling still almost neck and neck.
  • rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's a common thing to do in first person shooter games ;)
    I've never heard porn described that way. But I guess it's appropriate.
    You are Damien Green and I claim my £5.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    Not terror related report the bbc...not quite what Australian police have said and what are th chances...

    The man who deliberately drove a car into a crowd in Melbourne is a drug user with mental health issues but no known terrorism links, police say. The Australian citizen of Afghan descent was taken into custody after a struggle at the scene of the incident.

    A second man, 24, was arrested after being seen filming the incident. He had a bag of knives with him, police added.

    Wait a minute, I thought he was a police officer? Or were the early reports incorrect?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    The Tories lost London even in 2015 when they won an overall majority, that does not mean individual London boroughs cannot be saved
    The tide has shifted since then, three more years of private landlords leeching off the working man/woman, fewer home owners and the governing party implementing a locally unpopular policy (Brexit).

    Until the Conservative party is seen to be on the side of people earning between £26-45k and ensuring people who have that level of income can afford to buy or eventually buy their own flat/house then London is not going to vote for us. I've only been saying it for 10 years.
    I don't disagree but of course social change and the shift of the white working and lower middle class to Kent and Essex and the increasing ethnic makeup of London also favour Labour in the capital.

    Yet in terms of the borough elections next year the Tories are only defending 9 out of the 32 boroughs up for election so there is every chance they can defend most if not all of those especially with national polling still almost neck and neck.
    Buy yourself a monthly all-zones Oyster pass; you're going to be busy...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.



    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.


    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 an ask
    In Redbridge the identifying Jewish population has declined dramatically, due to low birth rate, relatively high death rate (children who arrived in the 30s and 40s, and a post-war baby boom), the growth of irreligion, and out-migration from London, particularly to Essex. I don't know Barnet so well, but see that latest GLA estimates put the Jewish population down to about 12-13% in the Borough as of 2014-15, probably lower by now. Most of whom voted Tory last time.
    Barnet has the 2 seats with the highest Jewish vote in the UK, Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon and Chipping Barnet also has a high Jewish population. The Tories held all 3 seats in June because of the antipathy of the Jewish vote towards Corbyn
  • Mr. Urquhart, lucky so many places have those anti-mental illness concrete barriers up now, then.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    A couple of dates for your calendars: report stage for the EU Bill is the 16th Jan, with the vote on third reading expected on the 17th!
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,743
    edited December 2017

    Ms. Apocalypse, reminds me of a university lecturer who pithily summed up sociology as pretty much blaming all the bad things on society.

    The most interesting thing in that is the suggestion, asserted as fact, that the majority think like Labour and the Conservatives are there for a minority.

    Also, inequality isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. What matters is that the poorest have the basic necessities of life. That's why a fixation on inequality or the ever-shifting bullshit goalposts of 'relative poverty' (a statistical perversion invented so that poverty will apparently exist even when everybody has enough money for all life's necessities and luxuries on top) is a nonsense.

    The inference that the wealthy have done something wrong due to a 'rigged system' or for having the temerity to be born into a wealthy family is an infantile appeal to envy. Not doing well? Blame those rich bastards. They're cheats, you know. None of them got there on merit (of course, some do just inherit a fortune, but most people work for their money).

    And look at socialism, and it's record. Or look at it in action right now. Venezuela, where everyone's losing weight due to starving to death, and the opposition has been banned from the next election. Mmm, socialist.

    I did sociology at A Level - I really enjoyed studying as well.

    I didn’t think he was inferring that the wealthy had done something wrong by being wealthy per se, but that society is structured in their favour.

    I’m not with you on inequality - I think a socially cohesive society is best achieved by to attempting reduce inequality.

    I don’t agree with what’s going on in Venezuela. But in terms of socialism in this country, while I’m not a socialist myself - and I don’t agree with Corbynism - when I look at the Attlee and Wilson governments, for example I think they had more of a positive rather than a negative impact on society.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.

    The Tories lost London even in 2015 when they won an overall majority, that does not mean individual London boroughs cannot be saved
    The tide has shifted since then, three more years of private landlords leeching off the working man/woman, fewer home owners and the governing party implementing a locally unpopular policy (Brexit).

    Until the Conservative party is seen to be on the side of people earning between £26-45k and ensuring people who have that level of income can afford to buy or eventually buy their own flat/house then London is not going to vote for us. I've only been saying it for 10 years.
    I don't disagree but of course social change and the shift of the white working and lower middle class to Kent and Essex and the increasing ethnic makeup of London also favour Labour in the capital.

    Yet in terms of the borough elections next year the Tories are only defending 9 out of the 32 boroughs up for election so there is every chance they can defend most if not all of those especially with national polling still almost neck and neck.
    Buy yourself a monthly all-zones Oyster pass; you're going to be busy...
    I have the Epping elections to concentrate on next May though may do a little bit in London on the way back from work if I get the time
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746
    HYUFD said:

    Barnet 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

    First, thanks for yours and other comments on my previous.

    The big question is whether the LAB and CON votes which turned out so strongly in June at the GE will do the same at next year's locals. So far, based on the few by-elections there have been since June, the LAB vote in LAB seats has turned out strongly but that might not be the case everywhere.

    Barnet is such a tightly-fought borough a change of one or two seats elsewhere is entirely possible.

    Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster all saw swings away from the Conservatives in June - now, LAB need more to take control and I agree it's a big ask but a strong LAB turnout and a weak CON turnout could deliver a number of changes.

    My fellow LDs will castigate me for my fears about Sutton but after 30 years in charge there may be a vote for change but for many years the local Conservatives were spectacularly inept and in 1994 I well remember the CON seats falling to 3 along with LAB at the time.

    The truth is change happens less often than we think and if I were a betting man (come on Shadsy, put up some London Borough markets !!) I'd make CON firm favourites to hold all their existing boroughs except Barnet, Kingston and Richmond. My other caveat is K&C - IF the anti-CON vote can coalesce around a single list of candidates, I believe we could see the Conservatives lose control but if the Opposition (both parties and locally-based groups) all stand, the Conservatives will survive.

    The fact is the Labour position in London has strengthened since 2014 and while I'd be pushed to say the CON position has declined since 2014 the strengthening of the LAB position will have an impact.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.

    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 an ask
    In Redbridge the identifying Jewish population has declined dramatically, due to low birth rate, relatively high death rate (children who arrived in the 30s and 40s, and a post-war baby boom), the growth of irreligion, and out-migration from London, particularly to Essex. I don't know Barnet so well, but see that latest GLA estimates put the Jewish population down to about 12-13% in the Borough as of 2014-15, probably lower by now. Most of whom voted Tory last time.
    Barnet has the 2 seats with the highest Jewish vote in the UK, Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon and Chipping Barnet also has a high Jewish population. The Tories held all 3 seats in June because of the antipathy of the Jewish vote towards Corbyn
    However distributed, hard data suggests they only amount to one in eight adults across the Borough.

    Some more hard data for you:

    2017 national swing to Con to Lab 2.1%

    Hendon swing to Labour 2.7%
    Chipping Barnet swing to Labour 6.9%
    Finchley & GG swing to Labour 4.0%



  • There is a useful Wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2018 which list all the authorities and mayors subject to election.

    Is the delayed election for the greater Sheffield (now less than it was planned to be) mayor still going ahead in May 2018?

    Most of the Yorkshire boroughs that were due to be in the Sheffield 'City Region' are in the camp that wants one mayor covering the whole of Yorkshire. Therefore I can't see the election happening next year.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,679
    Scott_P said:
    I was going to make a teabagging joke but then I thought of TSE and thought better not offend his sensitive soul.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 900

    kyf_100 said:

    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.

    Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.

    Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*

    *Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,249
    @matt_dathan: PM all but calls for Damian Green to hand back his £17,000 pay-off - No10 spokesman says: "It's a matter for the former secretary of state whether or not he chooses to receive that payment"
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    I think on the subject of socialism or capitalism, the latter works because it puts the onus on the individual while the former doesn't work because it puts the onus on "society".

    The best kind of government is one that helps people to help themselves. Lighting the way, rather than pushing people down the path.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnet 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

    First, thanks for yours and other comments on my previous.

    The big question is whether the LAB and CON votes which turned out so strongly in June at the GE will do the same at next year's locals. So far, based on the few by-elections there have been since June, the LAB vote in LAB seats has turned out strongly but that might not be the case everywhere.

    Barnet is such a tightly-fought borough a change of one or two seats elsewhere is entirely possible.

    Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster all saw swings away from the Conservatives in June - now, LAB need more to take control and I agree it's a big ask but a strong LAB turnout and a weak CON turnout could deliver a number of changes.

    My fellow LDs will castigate me for my fears about Sutton but after 30 years in charge there may be a vote for change but for many years the local Conservatives were spectacularly inept and in 1994 I well remember the CON seats falling to 3 along with LAB at the time.

    The truth is change happens less often than we think and if I were a betting man (come on Shadsy, put up some London Borough markets !!) I'd make CON firm favourites to hold all their existing boroughs except Barnet, Kingston and Richmond. My other caveat is K&C - IF the anti-CON vote can coalesce around a single list of candidates, I believe we could see the Conservatives lose control but if the Opposition (both parties and locally-based groups) all stand, the Conservatives will survive.

    The fact is the Labour position in London has strengthened since 2014 and while I'd be pushed to say the CON position has declined since 2014 the strengthening of the LAB position will have an impact.
    I think Kingston and Richmond are both more likely Tory losses to the LDs than any potential Tory losses to Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Thank you to Harry for his thoughts on this but I don't wholly agree. Yes, you can take the whole period from 2014 to now but we've had two GEs and a whole lot of other events since.

    I would argue that looking at the 2017 GE and the results since paints an entirely different picture. We also have the Queen Mary College poll from September giving Labour an enormous lead in London and building on the huge advances made by the party in the 2017 GE.

    On that basis and while most of Harry's predictions are uncontentious - as far as Newham is concerned, take out the "likely" and you'd be right - I'd offer the following amendments.

    BARNET - Likely LAB gain. A lot is made of the resilience of the CON vote in parts of the Borough but the CON majority is only one and I can't see that surviving.

    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 an ask
    In Redbridge the identifying Jewish population has declined dramatically, due to low birth rate, relatively high death rate (children who arrived in the 30s and 40s, and a post-war baby boom), the growth of irreligion, and out-migration from London, particularly to Essex. I don't know Barnet so well, but see that latest GLA estimates put the Jewish population down to about 12-13% in the Borough as of 2014-15, probably lower by now. Most of whom voted Tory last time.
    Barnet has the 2 seats with the highest Jewish vote in the UK, Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon and Chipping Barnet also has a high Jewish population. The Tories held all 3 seats in June because of the antipathy of the Jewish vote towards Corbyn
    However distributed, hard data suggests they only amount to one in eight adults across the Borough.

    Some more hard data for you:

    2017 national swing to Con to Lab 2.1%

    Hendon swing to Labour 2.7%
    Chipping Barnet swing to Labour 6.9%
    Finchley & GG swing to Labour 4.0%



    Which is more than enough to deliver victory in a tight contest as was proved in June in Barnet given the above average swing to Labour in London.

    Without the Jewish vote the Tories would likely have lost all 3 seats.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,769
    So a few days after @Dura_Ace joked that Yezhovshchina was coming for the Leavers, it turns out that May had meetings with a Russian spy called Yezhov...
  • The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.
  • RobD said:

    Not terror related report the bbc...not quite what Australian police have said and what are th chances...

    The man who deliberately drove a car into a crowd in Melbourne is a drug user with mental health issues but no known terrorism links, police say. The Australian citizen of Afghan descent was taken into custody after a struggle at the scene of the incident.

    A second man, 24, was arrested after being seen filming the incident. He had a bag of knives with him, police added.

    Wait a minute, I thought he was a police officer? Or were the early reports incorrect?
    I think you misread an earlier comment.
  • kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.

    Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.

    Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*

    *Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.

    I’m not an advocate for Momentum style social justice - I don’t think being a bit sceptical of what is a key component of Conservative ideology necessarily makes you a Momentumite.

    I also think Iain Martin misses the point - socialists like Jones (at least from that snapshot of his article anyway) are not talking about liberating the individual - they disagree with the idea of individualism in the first place and view things in terms of the collective. Now that has its own flaws too, but Martin appears to be applying his own political aims/perspective to Jones, which I think doesn’t quite work.

    I’m not surprised re you not minding paying more tax.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    RobD said:

    Not terror related report the bbc...not quite what Australian police have said and what are th chances...

    The man who deliberately drove a car into a crowd in Melbourne is a drug user with mental health issues but no known terrorism links, police say. The Australian citizen of Afghan descent was taken into custody after a struggle at the scene of the incident.

    A second man, 24, was arrested after being seen filming the incident. He had a bag of knives with him, police added.

    Wait a minute, I thought he was a police officer? Or were the early reports incorrect?
    I think you misread an earlier comment.
    Wouldn't be the first time :D
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnet 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

    First, thanks for yours and other comments on my previous.

    The big question is whether the LAB and CON votes which turned out so strongly in June at the GE will do the same at next year's locals. So far, based on the few by-elections there have been since June, the LAB vote in LAB seats has turned out strongly but that might not be the case everywhere.

    Barnet is such a tightly-fought borough a change of one or two seats elsewhere is entirely possible.

    Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster all saw swings away from the Conservatives in June - now, LAB need more to take control and I agree it's a big ask but a strong LAB turnout and a weak CON turnout could deliver a number of changes.

    My fellow LDs will castigate me for my fears about Sutton but after 30 years in charge there may be a vote for change but for many years the local Conservatives were spectacularly inept and in 1994 I well remember the CON seats falling to 3 along with LAB at the time.

    The truth is change happens less often than we think and if I were a betting man (come on Shadsy, put up some London Borough markets !!) I'd make CON firm favourites to hold all their existing boroughs except Barnet, Kingston and Richmond. My other caveat is K&C - IF the anti-CON vote can coalesce around a single list of candidates, I believe we could see the Conservatives lose control but if the Opposition (both parties and locally-based groups) all stand, the Conservatives will survive.

    The fact is the Labour position in London has strengthened since 2014 and while I'd be pushed to say the CON position has declined since 2014 the strengthening of the LAB position will have an impact.
    I think Kingston and Richmond are both more likely Tory losses to the LDs than any potential Tory losses to Labour
    and in RBKC the Tory majorities in the south are such that the only potential threat to them is if there is (or is widely seen to be) a single non-Conservative candidate standing against them - ideally a LibDem or this new "Advance" party, since most of the wards in that part of the Borough are ones that Labour can never win. Doubtless however Labour will go and fight them all, and end up with a Tory majority as reward for their tribalism.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    The Tories can win without London as they did in 2015, they can make inroads there but London is heading to be as strong for Labour as New York is for the Democrats
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    That is probably about right. We won't be in a position to make any headway in London until the party prioritises housing. Even Brexit doesn't matter compared to housing, it is the key issue for all Londoners.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.

    Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.

    Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*

    *Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.

    Momentum are driven by power not money
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    HYUFD said:

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    The Tories can win without London as they did in 2015, they can make inroads there but London is heading to be as strong for Labour as New York is for the Democrats
    'inroads' as in, lose a load more wards!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,870
    HYUFD said:

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    The Tories can win without London as they did in 2015, they can make inroads there but London is heading to be as strong for Labour as New York is for the Democrats
    There are no inroads to be made in London for the Tories until we improve home ownership rates. I think everyone in the party realises this simple fact, but the government are too useless to do anything about it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    MaxPB said:

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    That is probably about right. We won't be in a position to make any headway in London until the party prioritises housing. Even Brexit doesn't matter compared to housing, it is the key issue for all Londoners.
    Well look at the huge housing development targets Javid is now imposing on London and the Home Counties to be delivered in local plans at threat of even higher numbers of developments being imposed if the local plans are not delivered
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,679

    I did sociology at A Level - I really enjoyed studying as well.

    I didn’t think he was inferring that the wealthy had done something wrong by being wealthy per se, but that society is structured in their favour.

    I’m not with you on inequality - I think a socially cohesive society is best achieved by to attempting reduce inequality.

    I don’t agree with what’s going on in Venezuela. But in terms of socialism in this country, while I’m not a socialist myself - and I don’t agree with Corbynism - when I look at the Attlee and Wilson governments, for example I think they had more of a positive rather than a negative impact on society.
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    The Tories can win without London as they did in 2015, they can make inroads there but London is heading to be as strong for Labour as New York is for the Democrats
    'inroads' as in, lose a load more wards!
    If they still hold the borough of less concern
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,268
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Not terror related report the bbc...not quite what Australian police have said and what are th chances...

    The man who deliberately drove a car into a crowd in Melbourne is a drug user with mental health issues but no known terrorism links, police say. The Australian citizen of Afghan descent was taken into custody after a struggle at the scene of the incident.

    A second man, 24, was arrested after being seen filming the incident. He had a bag of knives with him, police added.

    Wait a minute, I thought he was a police officer? Or were the early reports incorrect?
    I think you misread an earlier comment.
    Wouldn't be the first time :D
    Driver was apprehended by an off duty cop
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,047
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    That is probably about right. We won't be in a position to make any headway in London until the party prioritises housing. Even Brexit doesn't matter compared to housing, it is the key issue for all Londoners.

    I was talking a couple of days ago with an architect who does a lot of work in London with the big housebuilding companies. He was telling me about one planned development of 4,000 houses, which had been agreed in principle when Boris was mayor. Now Sadiq Khan is trying to move the goalposts, insisting on a higher proportion of 'affordable' housing in the project.

    Result: The project has been kicked into the long grass, as it's no longer economic. The owners prefer to wait until there's a more sensible mayor. They can let the site out for industrial use in the meantime.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    The Tories can win without London as they did in 2015, they can make inroads there but London is heading to be as strong for Labour as New York is for the Democrats
    There are no inroads to be made in London for the Tories until we improve home ownership rates. I think everyone in the party realises this simple fact, but the government are too useless to do anything about it.
    Wrong, look at Javid's housebuilding programme. We have enough problems in Epping with NIMBYs opposed to the 11 000 new homes we had to plan for in the Council's Local Plan. Had that Local Plan not been delivered and approved by the Council the number would have risen to 20 000 by order of the Secretary of State.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,805
    edited December 2017
    Ms. Apocalypse, of course it is. Having more money is a helpful and good thing. So is being handsome, or witty. We're all born with advantages and disadvantages. Bleating about it being unfair is reminiscent of Jennifer Connelly's[sp] attitude in Labyrinth, or Rik in The Young Ones.

    Edited extra bit: the bleating refers to Jones, not yourself, of course.
  • kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.

    Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.

    Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*

    *Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.

    Momentum are driven by power not money
    That hasn't worked out well for "socialism" either has it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624

    Ms. Apocalypse, of course it is. Having more money is a helpful and good thing. So is being handsome, or witty. We're all born with advantages and disadvantages. Bleating about it being unfair is reminiscent of Jennifer Connelly's[sp] attitude in Labyrinth, or Rik in The Young Ones.

    Edited extra bit: the bleating refers to Jones, not yourself, of course.

    Owen 'man of the people' Jones of course earnt over £1 million in book sales in 2015 alone

    https://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.

    Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.

    Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*

    *Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.

    Momentum are driven by power not money
    That hasn't worked out well for "socialism" either has it
    Well only if they shot their opponents once in power
  • Mr. HYUFD, *sighs*

    Well, if anyone wants to redistribute monies to a deserving cause (me) and also acquire much mirth for themselves...

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Kingdom-Thaddeus-White-ebook/dp/B0757PMR7F/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.
  • Cyclefree said:

    I did sociology at A Level - I really enjoyed studying as well.

    I didn’t think he was inferring that the wealthy had done something wrong by being wealthy per se, but that society is structured in their favour.

    I’m not with you on inequality - I think a socially cohesive society is best achieved by to attempting reduce inequality.

    I don’t agree with what’s going on in Venezuela. But in terms of socialism in this country, while I’m not a socialist myself - and I don’t agree with Corbynism - when I look at the Attlee and Wilson governments, for example I think they had more of a positive rather than a negative impact on society.
    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    Ms. Apocalypse, of course it is. Having more money is a helpful and good thing. So is being handsome, or witty. We're all born with advantages and disadvantages. Bleating about it being unfair is reminiscent of Jennifer Connelly's[sp] attitude in Labyrinth, or Rik in The Young Ones.

    Edited extra bit: the bleating refers to Jones, not yourself, of course.

    Owen 'man of the people' Jones of course earnt over £1 million in book sales in 2015 alone

    https://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/
    So does that mean he should automatically become a selfish barsteward and flush his principles down the pan?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    The London Conservatives resemble Tea Leoni on the beach near the end of Deep Impact. They've gone beyond worrying about their fate to recognising, even embracing its inevitability following the choices they have made and making their peace with it.

    That is probably about right. We won't be in a position to make any headway in London until the party prioritises housing. Even Brexit doesn't matter compared to housing, it is the key issue for all Londoners.
    Well look at the huge housing development targets Javid is now imposing on London and the Home Counties to be delivered in local plans at threat of even higher numbers of developments being imposed if the local plans are not delivered
    Why is it that for those seeking social housing, you expect to live where you want to live regardless of the financial cost to society of allowing you to do so, and if you want to own your own home you accept that you have to live where you can afford to do so. There's a mindset issue there shirley.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,769
    The same logic that applies to our ally applies to us.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 900



    I’m not an advocate for Momentum style social justice - I don’t think being a bit sceptical of what is a key component of Conservative ideology necessarily makes you a Momentumite.

    I also think Iain Martin misses the point - socialists like Jones (at least from that snapshot of his article anyway) are not talking about liberating the individual - they disagree with the idea of individualism in the first place and view things in terms of the collective. Now that has its own flaws too, but Martin appears to be applying his own political aims/perspective to Jones, which I think doesn’t quite work.

    I’m not surprised re you not minding paying more tax.

    Yes, I meant Owen Jones is a big cheerleader for Momentum rather than you! Sorry.

    Ayn Rand was of course, a writer of pulpy fiction as a vehicle for cod-philosophy and she was never one to shy away from hyperbole.

    However, I can't help but feel Roark's speech on the individual vs the collective is the first thing that comes to mind when reading Owen Jones' article.

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthefountainhead.html

    Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man's "inalienable rights." It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.

    Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy.


    We are entering an era where the old bargain of - it's ok for the rich to get richer as long as it benefits the rest of us too - is breaking down. Neo-liberalism, trickle down, etc, are all discredited. But what worries me is that instead of seeking new answers many are turning to hard-left dogma that has been proven not merely to impoverish, but has seen millions killed, murdered, starved in its name. And make no mistake - that is where "collectivism" leads us.

    Am I happy with the rising disparity between rich and poor? No. Is collectivism of the kind I hear some in Momentum crying for the answer - history gives a resounding no, and I believe that is Iain Martin's point.


  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    The same logic that applies to our ally applies to us.

    Don't get your hopes up.... oh, too late :p
  • Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,769
    RobD said:

    The same logic that applies to our ally applies to us.

    Don't get your hopes up.... oh, too late :p
    Don't underestimate the statecraft of Theresa May. ;)

    image
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    HYUFD said:

    Ms. Apocalypse, of course it is. Having more money is a helpful and good thing. So is being handsome, or witty. We're all born with advantages and disadvantages. Bleating about it being unfair is reminiscent of Jennifer Connelly's[sp] attitude in Labyrinth, or Rik in The Young Ones.

    Edited extra bit: the bleating refers to Jones, not yourself, of course.

    Owen 'man of the people' Jones of course earnt over £1 million in book sales in 2015 alone

    https://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/
    he deserves it if it impoverishes the disadvantaged and stupid who surely would be better spending their money down the food bank
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.

    Ayn Rand is of course something of an extremist, but let's not forget that she lived under and escaped socialism.

    Here is something that will surprise you: I am rich (not a surprise) and I do not mind paying a bit more tax (surprised?) in order to ensure that the poorest in society are taken care of and, most importantly of all, have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The Momentum-ite philosophy (and I know many in person, call it an occupational hazard of working in media and living in central London) is one of 'take by force from those who have more'. It is the antithesis of aspirational, and will impoverish us all*

    *Those who don't manage to flee the country in time - which is what many of my wealthier friends are already doing.

    Momentum are driven by power not money
    That hasn't worked out well for "socialism" either has it
    Well only if they shot their opponents once in power
    short-termism
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,639
    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
  • Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.