politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2015 General Election: Will the Liberal Democrats make
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2015 General Election: Will the Liberal Democrats make net gains?
Yes, you did read that headline correctly, it wasn’t a typo, I am going to discuss whether the Lib Dems can make net gains in parliamentary seats at the 2015 General election, which might seem odd, given the Lib Dems current travails in the polls.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They will certainly have more seats in 2015 than in 1992, the Conservatives will have fewer.
But there is still no love out there for LDs.
At the GE itself Lib Dem urban seats (and University towns) are highly vulnerable to Labour, In Scotland to a combination of SNP and Labour -maybe a virtual wipe out..The Lib Dems failed to make progress against the Tories in the recent local elections. If there is any economic recovery the Tories will get the benefit. Finally UKIP is likely to take votes from all parties and Lib Dem seats in the south west will be under pressure.
So overall a bleak outlook which requires them to focus all resources on holding
onto around 20-30 seats which may still give them a role in any Labour led coalition though this may include other partners like the SNP.
However I agree 10 to one bet looks worth a punt!
Just over an hour and a half to P3. Got a few potential bets in mind. I think I'd prefer Hamilton to top the timesheets (if Rosberg does his odds will perhaps be displeasingly short).
I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems make net gains. If it were net gains versus the Conservatives that's possible, but surely they'll be hammered in Scotland?
- Douglas Adams
Happy Towel Day all you hoopy froods.
Postal vote farming far is more efficiently organised by both left-of-center parties than by the tories (nil by UKIP). So maybe the tories will under-perform compared with their national vote?
I suppose the tories might get their act together as far as postal votes is concerned, but they haven't shown any appetite for it yet. Or do any tory activists on here know different?
Net loss 12 seats.
But key factor not considered is activists. Like all parties (possibly Labour an exception) number of activists are down, and given the national situation, LDs are only targeting winnable seats and having to pour resources in - exactly as David Kendrick has observed.
So will the party have the resources still to pour everything into these target seats in the South? This is the key question for me, and as far as I can see the answer is yes; we have a marginal in this category near us and it's being given everything, although we're not next to a parliamentary seat we already hold.
My guess all in is that JackW's ARSE is producing output in the right area.
"Just over an hour and a half to P3."
From your man on the spot. It's f...ing noisy! Much better on TV.
TSE. 'Will the Libs make net gains'
No.
What happens to Con-LD marginals in the post-coalition post-UKIP-surge world?
To what degree are Tory-to-UKIP switchers willing to tactically vote Tory to keep the Liberal Democrats out? Could the Tory-to-UKIP defection actually be bigger than the LD-to-Lab defection once tactical voting is taken into account?
These are legitimate questions, especially since there are signs that the tactical anti-Tory vote is holding up for the Liberal Democrats, especially where there is a Lib Dem incumbent.
It's a giant unknown. The next election is looking incredibly messy as tactical voting unwinds in some areas and begins in others.
Do we even have any idea as to how much Con-to-UKIP switchers are willing to tactically vote against Labour in Con-Lab marginals? That will clearly have the biggest impact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10079115/City-firms-switching-from-Tories-to-UKIP-says-Nigel-Farage.html
Forecasts suggest very light rain is possible for qualifying (2pm your time). Would you agree proper rain is unlikely in the next few hours?
Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
Rand Paul (R) 42%
Rand Paul (R) 44%
Joe Biden (D) 39%
Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
Marco Rubio (R) 37%
Marco Rubio (R) 40%
Joe Biden (D) 39%
Also worth remembering a safety car is highly probable.
One also expects that the Lib Dems will be concentrating on defending the seats that they hold at the next election, which makes gains less likely. I can see why they would be more likely to win a seat where they are close behind the Tories compared to a seat they already hold where Labour is second, but from a psychological and organisational point of view they will find it hard to abandon seats they already hold in favour of ones they do not.
@bloggers4ukip
UKIP brings undemocratic Tory cabinet to an end in Norfolk http://fb.me/UyZh9GVP
"Would you agree proper rain is unlikely in the next few hours? "
Very unlikely. I would doubt even light rain.
Something always puzzles me in Monaco. Why are Ferrari by FAR the most popular team. Almost every store just sells Ferrari gear and nearly everyone is dressing in Ferrari colours. It's like Man U were playing twenty Accrington Stanley's
It's just a guess, but Ferrari are the most popular team generally, and the longest running in F1 which may play well at the longest running venue.
He is a star. Among this week's classic snippets: the tornado in Oklahoma was caused by a weather weapon. The US government controls weather systems to ensure snow stays on ths ski-slopes so that insurance companies don't have to pay out. The photos of the victims, perpetrators and crowds in Woolwich have been photoshopped. Endlessly fun stuff. He is a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. Well done to whoever pointed to his blog a few days back (Plato?), it's put a smile on my face.
Also, I've been reading Nick Robinson's book Live From Downing Street; I haven't got to the modern stuff yet. Good so far. I noticed when reading that the UK had GE's in both 1950 and 1951 and I either didn't know this or had forgotten. I went online to discover why and saw it was because Atlee had such a small majority and exhausted govt after his second GE victory that he was more or less forced into calling a new GE. Anyway, it got me reading Atlee's wiki page. There are some curious parallels with Atlee's 1945-51 govt and this current one: economic austerity, low unemployment (in spite of the hardships) and a govt that crumbles in exhaustion and unpopularity in 1951.. I expect this government will end up in the same crumpled heap,
Atlee obviously governed during very, very hard times, and faced-down vested interests in a bid to change the UK through nationalisation (see Bevan's efforts to create the NHS etc). But he is highly regarded by historians as a gerat PM? I wonder if Cameron,Osborne and Clegg's efforts to stablise the economy, create jobs and keep the UK on an even keel be favoured by history.
It'd be interesting to know how Atlee's govt was viewed mid-term? when wrestling with the seemingly insurmountable titan of austerity.
Red flag is out.
Edited extra bit: all four corners damaged, rear wing hanging off, front wing disappeared.
Anderson speculates the throttle may've been locked open.
'An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
@bloggers4ukip '
Good example of vote UKIP get Labour?
"Could this be a day's sports reporting to rival "SeanT at the dressage"?"
At least Sean could see the dressage! They have managed to block off every view to the track unless you are prepared to give the Rainiers 100E's which to a republican is out of the question (particularly as it's only to a practice) and as I said before f...ing noisy!!
LDs currently hold 57 seats and the first point to consider is how many will they lose before speculating on potential gains.
These 57 seats are split:
Scotland 11
Wales 3,
North East: 2
North West: 6
Yorks & Humber: 3
West Midlands: 2
East Midlands: 0
East: 4
London: 7
South-East: 4
Sout-West: 15
17 of these seats are on Labour's Target List (UKPR) with majorities <8k and 15 are <7k.
My understanding is that he was under continuous cross-fire from the left, who wanted a seriously Marxist government, and the right, who argued that really we should be putting wartime, rationing, etc. behind us faster. A bad winter put pressure on supplies, and the killer line from the opposition was "Britain in built on coal and surrounded by fish and you're achieving a shortage of both." By 1950 many people were fed up, and Churchill's "Set the people free" resonated. Attlee did get an extremely high poll but the Tories matched it, though IIRC Labour still had most votes in 1951 and was undone by FPTP (I'm sure we grumbled about unfair boundaries). Others with less dilletantish memories/knowledge will no doubt correct me.
Left-wingers have forgotten the arguments and remember his government as one that had a systematic leftish agenda, unlike all later pragmatic Labour governments - the obvious parallel is Thatcher. Right-wingers tend to think of him fairly benevolently as he was a nice safe long time ago.
Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.
Betting PostBacked Rosberg for pole at 1.95, no hedge.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/dutch-anxiety-over-sharia-triangle-police-no-go-area-in-the-hague-1.1404541
It is possible to oppose multiculturalism without being 'anti-Muslim'.
Personally I believe that controlled immigration is a good thing. But that that you come to live here should be prepared to integrate into our society.
Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.
This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
At a local level they have always said they would be willing to do deals but at the national level it would be suicide and Farage knows he would lose a whole chunk of his members and his protest vote appeal as "we're not liblabcon" should he ever contemplate a pact or deal withe any of the other parties. Particularly the tories.
Though if they keep these kind of deals up it's going to make it very easy for local tory MPs to hammer them as labour stooges in those areas. Same goes for any other deals with any other parties.
Obviously, Atlee's government was completely different to this one in terms of the politics, but it's interesting that they both faced/face governing under similar restrictions: lack of money, foreign menaces and extraordinary inter-party difficulties. Little wonder Atlee is so well regarded having steered the UK through all that, and of course, the NHS stands as his grandest and most enduring creation.
Cameron will not be able to hold up a legacy as enduring as the NHS, but if he is to be judged well by history (he may well be regarded poorly, who really knows?), will it be because of acknowledgement of the difficulties faced and gracious regard for the relative calmness with which he has steered himself, and us, through it?
I give Cameron credit for at least allowing his ministers to think for themselves - he appears less concerned and intense about cosying up to the media (to his cost, often). Some policies have flopped and faced ridicule, but I believe he has been a lot more willing to allow radical thinking to develop than Gordon Brown was. Brown was always too electorally calculating, when in his heart he probably wanted to be a radical.
I also think Clegg will be remembered as someone who changed British politics, possibly forever. If the economy straightens out, he may even go down as a tragic hero, albeit one who possibly wrecks his parties electorability in the process.
Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are as cancerous as the far left and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.
The argument I always find most ridiculous is those who say that Islam is a hate filled religion because of what it says in the Koran. Clearly those people have never read the Old Testament of the Bible either.
The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick.
I'd be happy to criticise you directly for conflating anti-Muslim/Islamic views and multiculturalism if you would prefer
I took 6/1 about the 41-50 block,now 4/1 as a result a few months back with a stake-covering bet on 31-40.
As I think I mentioned at the time, Norway is one of the least 'multicultural' countries in the western world. That doesn't mean they don't have immigrants, far from it, but they expect those immigrants to integrate thoroughly into their society and to adopt at least some elements of Norwegian culture. They are given plenty of help to do this but there is no tolerance for those who will not integrate. So long as they do that they are welcomed and treated by the government as just another Norwegian.
Unfortunately people like Brevik and the far right use the term 'multiculturalism' as a cover for their hatred for anyone who is not a white nothern European Christian. Even worse, those who do not know Norway bought into this argument and so gave some unjustified credence to his madness.
Pathetic. Why is government, any government, so fecking useless at delivering large scale projects on time or on budget? They barely seem to even get close most of the time. How can we not just bloody build or organise something effectively for once? Can you imagine a government trying to construct a major cathedral all on its own thesedays? It'd take 800 years (update - alright, let's say 1500) and be a 100 times over budget, the wrong shape and have to share space with the women's netball finals and the snail enthusiasts of west devonshire regional drag racing by the end of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22664672
It does seem a shame that the politics of a fascinating party like that was lost on her. I get the impression that middle/upper class society was more intermingled politically than it is now. She was being introduced to society by fairly Tory people - presented at court and so on. You probably wouldn't meet Tony Benn and George Galloway at a social event organised by George Osborne now.
England has never been a multi-culti shyte-hole but for the last twenty years: England has always had a monolithic society; one which evolved as other 'cultures' came and settled. As Eddie Izzard notes, we are a mongrol nation: New Labour have sought to destroy this model (and, in accordance with the Leninist-Marxism doctrine, to undermine English society).
England rejects multi-culti practices: Either the Mohammedians adapt or they wither. Labour represent all that will damage England; eventually multi-ethnic England will judge Labour accordingly....
Of course, one reason they do is they announce a cost and timescale, then reveal it will be 10x worse, then later say it will be half as bad as the last prediction, therefore it was a success! Dispiriting nonsense.
http://hurryupharry.org/2013/05/23/confronting-the-causes-of-religion-motivated-terrorism/
I'd be interested how Gormless McBruin would have behaved. His "love" of Her Majesty's Armed Forces resulted in such successes... not!
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/05/getting-out-of-fsta/
They can count themselves lucky many people still blame Labour for the cuts, such as they are, but at the end of this government, whenever thay may end up being, if they don't at least look like they managed to get a grip on Labour's mistakes, let alone deliver any of their own projects effectively, they will not only lose to Labour (as I've suspected all along, given the difficulty of implementing cuts ina difficult economy, collapse of LDs to an extent and infighting Tories), but be absolutely spanked.
Completely agree. The only people here that have ever made derogatory comments about people based on skin colour that I can recall on here are tim and Lewis Duckworth.
On the subject of Iraq and Afghanistan being leftie wars, I meant that they were the equivalent of the Nanny State on a world scale, interfering with things we dont understand and imposing western ways on countries that dont want it, and as a nation, were not a threat to us because "we know best".
But I admit I overstated the case and got a bit silly due to a lack of respect for the person I was arguing with, and being argumentative/scoring points got the better of me.
And even then it doesn't sound like a clear case of a just war at all. For example, the UK is currently sheltering someone accused of involvement with terrorism in Jordan. Aside from whether or not we think they should be doing that, and even if he'd been involved in very large-scale attacks, it's not obvious to me that the Jordanians would be justified in invading the UK over it.
Few Christians are biblical literalists. The Catholics, Orthodox and Anglican traditions are of the body of the Church laying down doctine, so can evolve over time.
There is also a difference in that the earlier parts of the Koran (the Meccan Suras) which are more peaceful and tolerant) are abrogated by the later Suras which support the killing of unbelievers etc. The converse is true of the bible, where the peaceful and nonviolent New testament over rides the violence of the early old testament.
People will always find excuses to act how their predjudices lead them, but there are fundamental differences between the Bible and the Koran on the uses of violence in the cause of religion.
PFI/QEC/FSTA all have the hall-marks of Labour: Lawyered scam-contracts that cost more to exit than service. [You obviously did not follow the provided link.] You should go and sit, conical-hat attired, in the corner....
:tumbleweed:
Edited to add: Watchkeeper - a total disaster (and I think Woolas may have been involved) - is on the list. Sven and his ilk are truely twunts!
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/05/from-the-people-who-gave-us-the-38-billion-black-hole/
I think you will find it was a Papal legate who uttered those immortal lines "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" at Beziers.
I'm just depressed that government (non political government there, so stop being offended about it) is so wasteful.
If it will set your mind at ease I will say that I voted LD in 2010, although I hoped for LD-Con Coalition as I thought Cameron the best leader. I don't want Labour to get back in in 2015 as I don't think they are ready for it, they will be arrogant and don't appear to be keen to address major problems, just oppose things.
Take a look at your sanctimonious, partisan post and then ask if I'm the one being unreasonable - I am frustrated that government, small g, is wasteful, whereas you want to attack Labour.
And no, I didn't follow the link on this occasion, partly because I was merely commenting on a non-political issue of government, pointing out that the Coalition cannot blame Labour forever even where Labour cocked up majorly, whereas yours was patently a political attack which I felt no need to respond to directly as I am not attempting to defend Labour or suggest the other parties are worse than they are. I was making the point that, even if everything about it is Labour's fault, the coalition will ultimately be judged on whether they can sort our messes not of their making as well.
Calm down, you see political attacks everywhere.
I can rarely recall being so infuriated by a post, so blatantly misinterpreting the tone and intent of my post. Granted, meaning can be unclear sometimes, and my frustration with government incompetence has made me more vivid in my anger toward it than is usually the case, but that I did not feel the need to address directly a point which was regarding a point which I had not in fact been making, is not unreasonable I think, and I do not think I was that unclear in the first place.
Bad start to the Cricket - looking nicely set, and then boom, both our most solid players out in two balls. Crazy.
Not much political news happening this week it feels like. Just seen this story on the BBC. I was disappointed it was as amusing as the double yellows in a pedestrian alley from a few weeks back.
A councillor has criticised the council for erecting a kissing gate in the middle of a field in Wiltshire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-22655640
When are parliament back? I think some are missing manufactured conflict to feed off.
I'll be somewhat irked if Rosberg fails to make it through.
Please explain....
Governments are wasteful. Some are worse than others, but it's a matter of degree, and so the fact of it inevitably happening is more frustrating and angering to me than determining which coloured rosette is worse at it. That's important too, but as I believe parties will switch back and forth over which is worse depending on their leaderships, it doesn't really matter which party currently is better or worse, and so engaging in a debate on that point was not something I felt I was best placed to do. I figured a Labour supporter would be better placed to dispute or apologise for such errors under their party's watch than I.
My sympathies. I assume you are still in-the-dark as to why I call you a 'poor "Yellow-Submarine"'. Please ask any regular....I did. No response, but something tells me that hardly matters. I mainly LD because I sit on the fence, but then the options are limited in the Tory shires anyway. Recent locals only the Tories and an independent even stood in my area, so I am free to know my views and votes will never make a difference, and so can look at partisan squabbling from the outside - why get angry at Labour/Tories/LD, when they will still rule in this area whatever the government?
Oh well, there's still one more day of IPL to go at least.
And I must be off. 10-1 on the LDs for 51-60 may be worth it on an outside chance, but I don't think the bookies are that far off on the possibility of it happening. Surprised they put 21-30 at the same chance as 41-50 though.
"YS" was a thoroughly decent Lib-Dem poster. His [Hers?] posts were thought-provoking, insightful and well-received. Yellow-Submarine is a muched-missed poster.
:make-of-that-as-you-will:
I'd put a *sincere face* indicator to indicate the above is indeed a sincere, if cheesy, statement, but I think Sally Bercow has demonstrated that stage directions like that would most likely be taken as being ironic (as indeed hers was judged to be).
You can't back this up because there wasn't such a post and you are incapable of logical reasoning. There is as much justification for your point as someone arguing that as you dislike it when people post links about recent child abuse scandals, that you actually like child abuse.