Categories
Shropshire North – nine days to go – politicalbetting.com
Shropshire North – nine days to go – politicalbetting.com
Latest Betfair prices on the Shropshire North by-election have the Tories at 62.5% with the LDs out a touch to 34%.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Third.
On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.
Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.
Labour had a base in OB, LibDems the same in NS. Whilst I disagree with withdrawing candidates, there needs to be the tacit agreement about which seats are winnable. The problem with some of the Labour activists is they are stupid enough to think all seats are Labour's by rights.
And then I expect the same in reverse up here. Alex Cole-Hamilton is a bit of a nobber foaming on about the evils of the SNP when the enemy is and remains the Tories. You can't stop the nippie juggernaut, but we can stop the Tories from wrecking places like Banff and Buchan then wanting support for doing so.
Or else they just made it up.
In contrast, as OGH pointed out recently, any details about confidential polling which comes from the Lib Dems have proved to be exceptionally reliable.
It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
FELIX NAVIDAD! Oh my days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8NcQzMQN_U
Anyway, seemed worth a few pounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Witney_by-election
I hope he gets buggered senseless by a horny honey badger.
Labour really should be picking up this seat. They need a smaller swing to gain this seat than other by-elections have seen before, they're the so-called Opposition, they're second-placed and they've regularly polled over 30% in this seat before.
If like in OBS they don't achieve a good swing then something is very, very wrong with Keir Starmer's leadership.
They do have some case in the sense that Labour have been second in North Shropshire at every general election since 1992 apart from 2010. However the LDs are much more likely to appeal to Tory voters in a by election protest vote than Labour are. To become PM Starmer will also almost certainly need LD and SNP support in a hung parliament, a Labour majority is very unlikely, so for Starmer LD gains from the Tories are almost as good as Labour gains from the Tories
Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
So we're back to two opposing blocks - Tories and not Tories. Where Labour are competitive and can take Tory seats the other parties need to let them get on with it. The reverse in LD-competitive seats (and there's about 100 of them with the LDs the clear contender), and leave the Greens to it in their own seat and targets. North of the wall its similar - stop fighting the SNP for Westminster elections and recognise them as a not-Tory block member.
There is a stupidity from some Labour activists on both wings that is a problem. The hard left refused to accept that people wouldn't vote for The Jeremy. The hard right refuse to accept that any challenge to Keir should be considered. And many in the middle dislike the LDs at a visceral level for not being sufficiently left/right enough to categorise.
If Labour can't even try to win here, in a midterm by-election caused by a scandal, then when and where are they supposed to win to get a majority?
But check out the Lab out-turn in C&A.
Moving to the personal for a second, I disagree with your logic for resigning the Lib Dems.
I don’t believe there is any ethical issue in voting SNP given the particular situation in your seat.
Of course it is your choice, but I believe you should follow your own advice as outlined above!
Because they were second placed in 2019?
Because they were second placed in 2017?
Because they were second placed in 2015?
Because they were second placed in 2005?
Because they were second placed in 2001?
Because they were second placed in 1997?
Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?
If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
I would guess that there are a lot of relatively safe Tory constituencies where the Lib Dems would always be 3rd in a general election, but where the Labour vote hits a ceiling at around 35% (unless the leader is a Blair type) above which you get diminishing returns. In a byelection that's where the Lib Dems come in because they can breach the ceiling as a relatively risk-free vote for disillusioned Tories. NS is one of those I think.
Also means that proper pacts need to be treated with care as they may put some voters off. The tacit pact is ideal. A shame it seems to have broken down here.
Once a Lib Dem campaign really gets going, it becomes unstoppable. Hence the desperation in the Conservative and Labour ranks.
Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....
As it is, it’s been widely assumed on here, on the ground, and in the media, that the LDs are the main challengers.
I have a strong suspicion that if Labour achieved 17,287 votes in the by-election they'd win it.
If Labour turned out their vote to give the Government a mid-term kicking they'd win this seat.
Labour achieved 17,287 votes achieved in this seat only four years ago. That's their "ceiling" surely and in a by-election it is a by-election winning tally, even without getting more votes than Corbyn which a Leader of the Opposition should be seeking to achieve.
The apparent effort at nobbling the LDs will likely kill any future tacit electoral pacts.
So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.
Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
There are so many to choose from, an embarrassment of riches for future historians.
If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
But yes if the seat is won by the Tories or LDs then Labour are losers. If the seat is won by Labour or Lib Dems then the Tories are losers.
First CON lead since 5-7 Nov
Con 38 (+1)
Lab 37 (=)
LDM 9 (+1)
Grn 5 (=)
SNP 4 (-1)
Other 7 (-2)
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468156211052826628?s=20
Westminster Voting Intention by gender
Male
Con 40%
Lab 33%
Female
Con 35%
Lab 41%
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20
But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
https://twitter.com/SaphiaFleury/status/1468143479305879559?s=20
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
Labour can get about a third of the vote in North Shropshire, the LDs however are more likely to appeal to Tory voters giving a by election protest vote than Labour are. The LDs have a lower floor in the seat than Labour but also a higher ceiling
A third of eligible voters voting for you is much, much, much more than you need to win a by-election.
This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
If Labour were taking this seriously I'd have expected a blizzard of SKS photo-ops.
The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
If Starmer were to be serious about winning the next election then Starmer should be working as hard as Blair was in 1995.
If this by-election had happened in 1995 then Blair would have given it all he's got. Winning seats like this sends a powerful message and creates momentum. Labour have achieved a by-election winning tally of votes here in the recent past, to not even bother to try is pathetic.
With all the bashing of politicians taking drugs today, up pops a Telegraph columnist admitting she spent most of her 20s and 30s on cocaine - while she was working for the Telegraph. But she’s sober now, so that’s okay.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/06/think-middle-class-cocaine-use-just-bit-dinner-party-fun-need/
Confirms the very early anecdotal stuff I used to make my prediction over a week ago.
"Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients [in Gauteng] are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23 per cent throughout the Delta wave. And just 2 per cent are on ventilators, down from 11 per cent."
https://www.ft.com/content/d315be08-cda0-462b-85ec-811290ad488e
This year's 5 most trusted professions:
Nurses - 94%
Librarians - 93%
Doctors - 91%
Teachers - 86%
Museum curators - 86%...
And the five least trusted...
Business leaders - 31%
Journalists - 28%
Gov ministers - 19%
Politicians - 19%
Ad execs - 16%
https://twitter.com/mwclemence/status/1468177551310917634?s=20
Something similar to 2017 is entirely possible.
It is my understanding that a considerable number of the 90+ group are so frail that they are not medically recommended to have the vaccine.
You see a similar effect for the first and second doses.
Edit: wonder if he lived/worked in the West of Midland.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Presumably Starmer's reasoning, looking at Labour's position in the polls and recent by-elections, was that the former was very unlikely to be achievable, so he opted to soft pedal in the hope of the latter, which looks achievable. He may be wrong, but it isn't lazy or "pathetic" - it's a political calculation of the type Blair or anyone else would make.
Put it this way, you and others will do some ramping on it, but if the Tories lose this one, the headline the next day just isn't going to be "Labour embarrassed as Lib Dems gain MP". It will be all about Tory humiliation and pressure on Johnson.
It’s not really true in NZ, although it has become more true in the last decade or so.
But we could/should do better.
To be fair I don't think this is at all what is happening, but as we have had all the other ideas I thought I would add this!
She should give it another go, maybe.
Nonetheless, it's evident that Labour is now making an effort, with various senior Labour people (interestingly on the centrist wing of the party who you might have thought would be keenest on a tacit alliance) talking up the campaign. My guess is that up to Bexley they were totally focused there, and have now shifted attention.
We need a proper pact is my conclusion FWIW.
"Mmmm... 1st Oxford, PPE, Masters in literature... Sorbonne.. good, good. *That* think tank... excellent. Stint at the Pirory? The X branch? Did you meet Dr James there? How is he? Yes, excellent background...."
The 17 thousand votes Labour achieved here in the very recent past is considerably more than the Tories achieved in either Bexley or Chesham and Amersham.
Blair would have been here repeatedly seeking to win this seat, he wouldn't have spurned the opportunity to claim a scalp.
1. It might just be too early to tell, i.e. the cases haven't yet had time to get to the hospitalisation/death stage;
2. Omicron might intrinsically be milder than previous variants (i.e. milder in populations which have not previously been infected or vaccinated);
3. It might be showing up as milder because those being infected now in SA (and increasingly elsewhere) already have some immunity to severe disease through previous infections and vaccination.
Although we can't quite be sure yet, we probably have a long enough period of data now to conclude that 1 is unlikely, i.e. that it's not just a timing issue.
However, we don't have enough data to distinguish between 2 and 3. Lots of people seem to be assuming 2, but 3 is more likely. (It could have course be a bit of both).
The difference between 2 and 3 is very important for the 25% or so of under-50s in the UK who still (incredibly) are unjabbed, and even more important for those countries where vaccination rates are much lower.
Devolution of both politics and media is required.
It should be possible (and desirable) to go:
Provincial uni > local politics > national leadership.