Much has changed in the last week with the Labour and Tory manifesto launches. Today there was a council by-election in Enfield Lock ward of Enfield North constituency. This is important because Enfield North was one of the few Labour gains in 2015 and the Tories only need a swing of 1.2% to get it back. It is the Tories’ 12th most likely gain, and one they should take easily if they are going to get the big majority predicted.
Here was the result:
It is worth noting the unusually high turnout: 32%. This is almost certainly explained by the proximity to the general election, and for the same reason voters are likely to have concentrated on national rather than local factors.
The net swing from Labour to Tory was only 0.3%. Labour would hold Enfield North on that swing. Indeed, UK-wide the Tories would only gain Chester and Ealing Central on a 0.3% swing.
Of course I do not pretend that you can really extrapolate from a single London ward across the whole country. But over 4,000 people cast real votes in that by-election compared to the 1,100 sample of the average opinion poll. It is undeniably true that the Conservatives would have expected to do a good deal better in Enfield Lock today. I do not think we are getting a true picture of what is happening in the country from the polls and the media. There is life in this election yet.
Labours Manifesto has given a massive boost to its hopes in the General Election. The Manifesto is not radical, but is the answer to the failed Neoliberal economics of the Tories , that is privatisation and austerity. Tory economics are housewife economics of balancing the kitchen budget,not applicable to a modern economy.
A shrinking economy needs action from the Govt, to invest in ‘kick starting’ a moribund economy, investing in infrastructure and creating jobs. The multiplier effect then takes over,confidence is restored, more money in circulation, creating economic activity.
When the private sector is not inclined to invest , the Govt must take the lead.
A manageable deficit is a requirement to expand an economy.
We are in a period of debt deflation, where the disposable income of families is eaten up by mortgages ,car loans,rents etc. This has led to stagnation in the economy. Investment by Govt in infrastructure and productive Industry is the only way out of the morass. Labour are on the right track.
I am curious as to who was the brains behind this forward looking Manifesto.
The Manifestos that want long distance travellers by road to buy new cars seem to have forgotten that petrol exhaust fumes are more noxious than diesel IMHO. Both can be filtered better than they are at present without purchasing new vehicles. Fair play to the cyclists, walkers and public transport passengers, they make less fumes. But if they want their office comforts, i.e. food heat light broadband etc they will have to endure fumes.
The whole idea is completely unpriced dogma by people who earn too much by sitting on their bums which could do just as easily sitting at home except of course that dick-waving on a 2 dimensional screen would be less impressive than the same in the accoutrements of a city centre office suite.
Make the cyclists and joggers pay for their pampered life-styles and leave white van man and those of us with extended families across the country alone.
What on earth does this comment have to do with the above blog post?
I think it’s a reply to the first post that may need a bit of cryptic analysis. For me, I haven’t read the Labour Manifesto yet, so it’s all Greek to me.
Yes, I agree! More importantly, I thing Keynes would too, especially in the present economic malaise.
Here’s …Laura again on yesterday’s big act.
Conservative manifesto: Theresa May’s ‘mainstream’ pitch
18 May 2017
Until not that long ago*, Theresa May was perhaps best known for her characterisation of the Tory party as a group that some voters thought was “the nasty party”.
Years and years later, it feels her first manifesto pitch as prime minister is the logical conclusion of that.
In her manifesto she tried to make a bold claim, that the Tories had never been the party of untrammelled free markets, that they had always believed that government could be a force for good – indeed that it is time for an end to political tribes, that she is for and represents the mainstream.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39965837
* She is as garrulous as ever. Did she mean to say ‘Until recently…’? Kuenssberge must also know that it is STILL thought of as the ‘nasty party’ however she spins their messages
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/865378944010207232
Just to remind ourselves that if the general local election results this month were transposed onto the parliamentary election, the result would be a Tory majority of 38, with all the reservations necessary about the meaning of such a projection. Not that great really, hardly a full-throated vote of support for May. It’s not far from being a vote of no-confidence. And since then the Tory campaign has hardly gone well, as Craig points out.
Cannot comment on Enfield but was out canvassing in a SNP constituency and the Tories were very thin on the ground (two). The thing that was striking to me was that the feeling about independence is that it is standing up i.e. it is not ‘dissolving’ or being taken over by unionist parties, but indeed, the second most favoured was the (also) independence favouring Greens. Admittedly this was a very distinct sample and not representative of much except that constituency. Certainly looked like a SNP hold and there was a lot of support expressed towards the SNP for their policies- (not just the Independence issue) and Nicola Sturgeon seemed well liked.
The two Tories were (again no significance being attached) both young women (twenties) and quite aggressively ‘Tory’.
I have to say as well that there was one clear Labour supporter in an area that would once have been overwhelmingly Labour.
Scottish Labour are so split they are now four very distinct and incompatible factions.
There is the Blairite Labour contingent represented by leader – if you can call her that – Kezia Dugdale and Ian Murray. There is then the indy interested faction, possibly – it remains to be seen – led by deputy leader Alex Rowley. Then there are the Corbynite pro-unionists. Finally there is the ideology free and completely out for themselves brigade who are represented by the Labour councillors who have this week been doing deals with the Tories in local government.
No, they were a minority government,
Where? Its similar in Perthshire where a lot of SNP voters confirmed they didn’t vote in council elections but will in the GE.
Conservative manifesto: Why many will pay more for care – by Nick Triggle who is a good explainer
Nick Triggle
Health correspondent
18 May 2017
What the Conservatives have proposed for elderly care in England is complex.
They are changing certain thresholds as well as what can be defined as assets and how long you wait before you have to pay your bill.
But in the end it can be summed up quite easily – they want people to pay more towards the cost of their care, but are prepared to wait until you die before taking it from your estate.
Yes, some elements of their plans sound generous and certainly some people will benefit, but large numbers won’t.
Why? Because we are a nation of homeowners and these plans make sure that whatever sort of care you need, the value of your home can be taken into account.
How the care system works across the UK
The alternative options
10 charts that show what’s gone wrong with social care
Elderly care is not free A quick run through the figures demonstrates this.
[..]
Just because you are frail and need some help with dressing or eating, it does not necessarily mean you will be entitled to protection even if you are paying for care.
Councils require you to have very high needs – essentially great difficulty with at least two daily tasks. About half of people with recognisable care needs fall outside of this definition, according to Age UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39957879
Vultures are kinder than the Tories and perform a useful function of cleaning up the corpses from the environment. No mention anywhere of the astronomical cost of cremation, burial and funerals now being faced by those bereaved.
Elderly Care in their own homes should come under the NHS umbrella, “From the cradle to the grave” is what we were told our contributions were for. I have nothing against Residential Care being paid for by the person’s estate. It’s their property and their welfare need is foremost if there is not sufficient family help available.
The problem is that some families lose the family home, or homes, whereas others play within the rules and transfer property to younger family. It used to be seven years had to elapse, there were also some kind of trust deeds that could be set up as well. One group pays for everything and others, some rich, some poor, get a free ride. The governments can’t be bothered to set-up a proper Care system for all.
I agree, but the biggest “trick” of course is the FPTP system which effectively disenfranchises millions. It’s time to get rid of professional politicians and start a campaign for deliberative democracy, mediated by sortition. See Brett Hennig and “The End Of Politicians: Time for a Real Democracy”
“I agree” was with regard to “coalition of doom”. I’m fed up with professional politicians and their lies and the big money behind them etc etc and want democracy handed to the ordinary people.
I saw a poll breakdown yesterday which showed the constituent UK nations separately. I think it was the one showing Labour’s vote firming up at 32%. It was polling 39% in England, largely due to the Scottish collapse in the Labour vote. So yes, Craig, it’s possible the Labour vote in its English heartlands is stronger than we’re being told.
After a fantastic manifesto from Labour and a dismal one from the Tories a swing of any sort to the Tories is appalling. Just how fucking stupid are
the electorate? May is really trying to find out!
I only hope that this is a reflection of the turnout. A solid Labour area with folk not bothering. Let’s hope that in the marginals people do get out and vote and that they vote for the policies.
The mental age of a twelve year old is considered the target for a political campaign. How subtle is the difference between these simplistic needs and the gullability of what is required by May?