A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could outperform the polls by clinging on through incumbency and focusing on the remaining few areas of strength had some credence to it. But with them amazingly still dropping, now honing in on 5ish, the reverse may well happen, as even in LD seats with strong LD presences in local councils, it is so low that even those inclined to consider them may well think there is no point, that even from a comfortable majority in 2010 on current polling many will be wiped out, so even some remaining loyalists might well jump ship to Labour to ensure the local Tory does not win.
It seems odd that 10ish seems bad but not terminal, whereas 6-7ish does seem terminal, but it seems a plausible scenario now. The LDs were second in my neck of the woods, nowhere the Tories but light years ahead of Labour, but why would anybody but a party member bother voting for them in the constituency now? The Tories will win regardless, but for anyone hoping to beat them, Labour coming from virtually nowhere to run them close looks more plausible than the LDs doing so.
That is a key thing that might drive the LD to extinction, if voters see the LD at these levels or lower in the opinion polls just before they cast their vote, they will think "what's the point of voting LD?" It's the opposite of the bandwagon effect.
Lower LD scores will tend to result in even lower scores as people will increasingly think that they are irrelevant. An electoral death spiral.
You don't half post some absolute drivel . Look at the actual local council by election results from July to date . The Lib Dem vote share is up on the previous contests at 15% and there has been a net gain of seats . The Green share of the vote has fallen in nearly every seat they contested and is below 4% . Now which party is in an electoral death spiral . In reality none as the Greens will always have a minor role to play .
I'd have been inclined to agree with you, but the sheer persistence of death spiral level polling for the LDs has to have some affect at some point, surely? They'll return 20-30 MPs, and they've been in worse positions than that, but if the vote just disappears in too many seats, be they Labour or Tory heartlands, if people just get out of the habit of voting LD in parliamentary elections, a recovery to the sort of position they claim they want to have, holding the balance of power, will be so much harder.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
At some point I'll understand why the bookies have the LDs on shorter odds for 31-40 seats than 21-30. Unless the polls improve that simply makes no sense.
People are always behind the curve, that is why it took years for UKIP to become favourites in some seats even if the evidence was right in front of us (example: Boston).
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
It's only about £250,000 if they lose their deposit in 500 seats.
Worth spending to keep up the pretence - and presumably the free PPBs that go with it.
I guess that is the reasoning, and sure the figures are not going to bankrupt the party, but still a little embarrassing to be pissing away such an amount of money, but clearly not as embarrassing as just not bothering to stand at all.
THE UK should only be allowed to leave the European Union if all four home nations vote in favour of such a move in a referendum, Scotland’s first minister in waiting has argued.
I guess the same logic should apply to Scottish independence, if any major constitutional change which affects all four home nations of the Union has to be agreed by all four home nations of the Union?
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
In most previous elections the Liberals/Lib Dems have taken out insurance against a large number of lost deposits and I presume they will do so this time .
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
Last election:
UKIP - £229,500 Greens - £164,000 BNP - £133,000 English Dems - £53,000 Christian - £35,500
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could outperform the polls by clinging on through incumbency and focusing on the remaining few areas of strength had some credence to it. It seems odd that 10ish seems bad but not terminal, whereas 6-7ish does seem terminal, but it seems a plausible scenario now. The LDs were second in my neck of the woods, nowhere the Tories but light years ahead of Labour, but why would anybody but a party member bother voting for them in the constituency now? The Tories will win regardless, but for anyone hoping to beat them, Labour coming from virtually nowhere to run them close looks more plausible than the LDs doing so.
That is a key thing that might drive the LD to extinction, if voters see the LD at these levels or lower in the opinion polls just before they cast their vote, they will think "what's the point of voting LD?" It's the opposite of the bandwagon effect.
Lower LD scores will tend to result in even lower scores as people will increasingly think that they are irrelevant. An electoral death spiral.
You don't half post some absolute drivel . Look at the actual local council by election results from July to date . The Lib Dem vote share is up on the previous contests at 15% and there has been a net gain of seats . The Green share of the vote has fallen in nearly every seat they contested and is below 4% . Now which party is in an electoral death spiral . In reality none as the Greens will always have a minor role to play .
I'd have been inclined to agree with you, but the sheer persistence of death spiral level polling for the LDs has to have some affect at some point, surely? They'll return 20-30 MPs, and they've been in worse positions than that, but if the vote just disappears in too many seats, be they Labour or Tory heartlands, if people just get out of the habit of voting LD in parliamentary elections, a recovery to the sort of position they claim they want to have, holding the balance of power, will be so much harder.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
In 1970 the Liberals fell just 1%, in 1979 they fell 4.5%. Here we are talking about a fall of 18% at least.
In 1970 they lost 6 seats, in 1979 they lost 2 seats. Here we are talking about 30 seats so far.
The magnitude is on average 10 times more than your previous experiences.
Artist You go on who are rising in the polls at the timeand Sweden and New Zealand happily have election debates with 6 or more parties. The Greens also had an MP before UKIP and beat the LDs in the European elections
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could outperform the polls by clinging on through incumbency and focusing on the remaining few areas of strength had some credence to it. It seems odd that 10ish seems bad but not terminal, whereas 6-7ish does seem terminal, but it seems a plausible scenario now. The LDs were second in my neck of the woods, nowhere the Tories but light years ahead of Labour, but why would anybody but a party member bother voting for them in the constituency now? The Tories will win regardless, but for anyone hoping to beat them, Labour coming from virtually nowhere to run them close looks more plausible than the LDs doing so.
That is a key thing that might drive the LD to extinction, if voters see the LD at these levels or lower in the opinion polls just before they cast their vote, they will think "what's the point of voting LD?" It's the opposite of the bandwagon effect.
Lower LD scores will tend to result in even lower scores as people will increasingly think that they are irrelevant. An electoral death spiral.
You don't half post some absolute drivel . Look at the actual local council by election results from July to date . The Lib Dem vote share is up on the previous contests at 15% and there has been a net gain of seats . The Green share of the vote has fallen in nearly every seat they contested and is below 4% . Now which party is in an electoral death spiral . In reality none as the Greens will always have a minor role to play .
I'd have been inclined to agree with you, but the sheer persistence of death spiral level polling for the LDs has to have some affect at some point, surely? They'll return 20-30 MPs, and they've been in worse positions than that, but if the vote just disappears in too many seats, be they Labour or Tory heartlands, if people just get out of the habit of voting LD in parliamentary elections, a recovery to the sort of position they claim they want to have, holding the balance of power, will be so much harder.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
In 1970 the Liberals fell just 1%, in 1979 they fell 4.5%. Here we are talking about a fall of 18% at least.
You may be talking about an 18% fall but no sane person is .
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
In most previous elections the Liberals/Lib Dems have taken out insurance against a large number of lost deposits and I presume they will do so this time .
I wasn't aware that was even an option. Interesting. Well, if no independent worth their salt stands in my area I may as well help the LDs save their deposit again I guess, it's not as though it will affect the outcome, so maybe they'll get enough loyalists and sympathy votes to hold more deposits than the odds suggest.
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
Last election:
UKIP - £229,500 Greens - £164,000 BNP - £133,000 English Dems - £53,000 Christian - £35,500
Labour - £2,500 Tory - £1,000 LD - £0
Man, that really was a disappointing year for UKIP
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could outperform the polls by clinging on through incumbency and focusing on the remaining few areas of strength had some credence to it. It seems odd that 10ish seems bad but not terminal, whereas 6-7ish does seem terminal, but it seems a plausible scenario now. The LDs were second in my neck of the woods, nowhere the Tories but light years ahead of Labour, but why would anybody but a party member bother voting for them in the constituency now? The Tories will win regardless, but for anyone hoping to beat them, Labour coming from virtually nowhere to run them close looks more plausible than the LDs doing so.
That is a key thing that might drive the LD to extinction, if voters see the LD at these levels or lower in the opinion polls just before they cast their vote, they will think "what's the point of voting LD?" It's the opposite of the bandwagon effect.
Lower LD scores will tend to result in even lower scores as people will increasingly think that they are irrelevant. An electoral death spiral.
You don't half post some absolute drivel . Look at the actual local council by election results from July to date . The Lib Dem vote share is up on the previous contests at 15% and there has been a net gain of seats . The Green share of the vote has fallen in nearly every seat they contested and is below 4% . Now which party is in an electoral death spiral . In reality none as the Greens will always have a minor role to play .
I'd have been inclined to agree with you, but the sheer persistence of death spiral level polling for the LDs has to have some affect at some point, surely? They'll return 20-30 MPs, and they've been in worse positions than that, but if the vote just disappears in too many seats, be they Labour or Tory heartlands, if people just get out of the habit of voting LD in parliamentary elections, a recovery to the sort of position they claim they want to have, holding the balance of power, will be so much harder.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
In 1970 the Liberals fell just 1%, in 1979 they fell 4.5%. Here we are talking about a fall of 18% at least.
You may be talking about an 18% fall but no sane person is .
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
In most previous elections the Liberals/Lib Dems have taken out insurance against a large number of lost deposits and I presume they will do so this time .
I wasn't aware that was even an option. Interesting. Well, if no independent worth their salt stands in my area I may as well help the LDs save their deposit again I guess, it's not as though it will affect the outcome, so maybe they'll get enough loyalists and sympathy votes to hold more deposits than the odds suggest.
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
Last election:
UKIP - £229,500 Greens - £164,000 BNP - £133,000 English Dems - £53,000 Christian - £35,500
Labour - £2,500 Tory - £1,000 LD - £0
Man, that really was a disappointing year for UKIP
I'm always struck by the number of candidates the Christian Party managed to fund. Do their people self-fund or do they have some organised church funding or something I don't know about?
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
The big question tomorrow of course is whether OGH's thread will feature the LibDems having dropped to 5th place in tonight's Sun/YouGov poll.
Are you on anything for US grand prix yet Pfp?
I took me hours and hours and hours to hack into my russian account - Avery would have been well disappointed.
No, I don't care for being ridiculed when I suggest what I consider to be well thought out betting propositions, so there'll be no more F1 bets from me.
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could outperform the polls by clinging on through incumbency and focusing on the remaining few areas of strength had some credence to it. But with them amazingly still dropping, now honing in on 5ish, the reverse may well happen, as even in LD seats with strong LD presences in local councils, it is so low that even those inclined to consider them may well think there is no point, that even from a comfortable majority in 2010 on current polling many will be wiped out, so even some remaining loyalists might well jump ship to Labour to ensure the local Tory does not win.
That is a key thing that might drive the LD to extinction, if voters see the LD at these levels or lower in the opinion polls just before they cast their vote, they will think "what's the point of voting LD?" It's the opposite of the bandwagon effect.
Lower LD scores will tend to result in even lower scores as people will increasingly think that they are irrelevant. An electoral death spiral.
You don't half post some absolute drivel . Look at the actual local council by election results from July to date . The Lib Dem vote share is up on the previous contests at 15% and there has been a net gain of seats . The Green share of the vote has fallen in nearly every seat they contested and is below 4% . Now which party is in an electoral death spiral . In reality none as the Greens will always have a minor role to play .
I'd have been inclined to agree with you, but the sheer persistence of death spiral level polling for the LDs has to have some affect at some point, surely? They'll return 20-30 MPs, and they've been in worse positions than that, but if the vote just disappears in too many seats, be they Labour or Tory heartlands, if people just get out of the habit of voting LD in parliamentary elections, a recovery to the sort of position they claim they want to have, holding the balance of power, will be so much harder.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Don't they normally give up then come back quickly under another, similar name? Bit prickish isn't it?
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
The LDs 2013 local election result (13% NEV) was their lowest since 1980. Their 2014 local election result (11% NEV) was lower.
Revealing comment - Dr Kent Brantly - Ebola survivor was at the White House today. He was asked if he had a chance to tell the president what needed to be done. His answer - "We listened a lot."
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
The last time the Liberals went through a thrashing, as large as the opinion polls suggest, they needed 43 years (or 52 years depending on the Alliance) to recover.
And with that goodnight. (I'm not wasting any more time debating about electoral political party has-been's)
That haven't exactly outperformed their polls in by-elections either.
Disclaimer: MarkSenior doesn't consider me a sane person.
I think they are using the UKIP/Farage technique of building up a power base in councils before gradually starting to win seats in meaningful elections
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
Why should the Lib Dems recover in 1-2 years? It took the Tories and Labour 13 and 18 years respectively to recover from their previous lows.
That haven't exactly outperformed their polls in by-elections either.
Disclaimer: MarkSenior doesn't consider me a sane person.
I think they are using the UKIP/Farage technique of building up a power base in councils before gradually starting to win seats in meaningful elections
If only they also had a leader who could trounce the others in a TV debate setting.
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
Why should the Lib Dems recover in 1-2 years? It took the Tories and Labour 13 and 18 years respectively to recover from their previous lows.
Well if Labour are in and doing poorly (or rather having to do a lot of things that are happening now as well) and the LDs have a new Labour friendly leadership, one could see a whole bunch jumping back to the LDs, as a superficial change at the top proves enough to self justify changing their protest vote. Hell, with Labour saying they'll need 10 years to sort things out, they are trying to prepare everyone for things not being all swell after they win, which is a much more realistic approach than usual - or so it feels at any rate - which may suggest they are worried about such a revival happening too.
The big question tomorrow of course is whether OGH's thread will feature the LibDems having dropped to 5th place in tonight's Sun/YouGov poll.
Are you on anything for US grand prix yet Pfp?
I took me hours and hours and hours to hack into my russian account - Avery would have been well disappointed.
No, I don't care being ridiculed when I suggest what I consider to be well thought out betting propositions, so there'll be no more F1 bets from me.
F*ck it-
Fun bet/serious bet/hopefully fix it bet
I'm be on Lewis at the US very very soon.
Brisky will confirm
The simple fact is that I honestly believe it's very difficult to make money from betting on F1, so I'd really rather leave.it alone. I'm much more successful betting on Politics and to a lesser extent on Footy and by AVOIDING betting on horses which I view as a licence to lose money.
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
Why should the Lib Dems recover in 1-2 years? It took the Tories and Labour 13 and 18 years respectively to recover from their previous lows.
Well if Labour are in and doing poorly (or rather having to do a lot of things that are happening now as well) and the LDs have a new Labour friendly leadership, one could see a whole bunch jumping back to the LDs, as a superficial change at the top proves enough to self justify changing their protest vote. Hell, with Labour saying they'll need 10 years to sort things out, they are trying to prepare everyone for things not being all swell after they win, which is a much more realistic approach than usual - or so it feels at any rate - which may suggest they are worried about such a revival happening too.
I think that sort of swift turnaround only happens when a party signs a public pledge to deliver a flagship policy, gets into govt and then does the exact opposite.
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
Why should the Lib Dems recover in 1-2 years? It took the Tories and Labour 13 and 18 years respectively to recover from their previous lows.
Well if Labour are in and doing poorly (or rather having to do a lot of things that are happening now as well) and the LDs have a new Labour friendly leadership, one could see a whole bunch jumping back to the LDs, as a superficial change at the top proves enough to self justify changing their protest vote. Hell, with Labour saying they'll need 10 years to sort things out, they are trying to prepare everyone for things not being all swell after they win, which is a much more realistic approach than usual - or so it feels at any rate - which may suggest they are worried about such a revival happening too.
The problem being that the Libdems are predominantly a party supported by upper class (ABC1) voters and therefore are likely not to appeal to the vast majority of dissatisfied Labour voters. They also have the least politically correct Parliamentary party so will find it hard to appeal to ethnic or female voters..
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
Why should the Lib Dems recover in 1-2 years? It took the Tories and Labour 13 and 18 years respectively to recover from their previous lows.
Well if Labour are in and doing poorly (or rather having to do a lot of things that are happening now as well) and the LDs have a new Labour friendly leadership, one could see a whole bunch jumping back to the LDs, as a superficial change at the top proves enough to self justify changing their protest vote. Hell, with Labour saying they'll need 10 years to sort things out, they are trying to prepare everyone for things not being all swell after they win, which is a much more realistic approach than usual - or so it feels at any rate - which may suggest they are worried about such a revival happening too.
I think that sort of swift turnaround only happens when a party signs a public pledge to deliver a flagship policy, gets into govt and then does the exact opposite.
I don't exclude the possibility of that happening with Labour, but I guess Ed M will be too cautious to risk of following in the footsteps of others in that regard.
Owen Jones tweets: Greens will be rightly chirpy about driving the Lib Dems into fifth place in the latest YouGov. Labour back to 3 point lead. Not good enough
For Miliband, a point of real crisis has now been reached. This crisis is all about the number of seats he needs to win. Miliband’s refusal to chase votes in southern English seats such as Rochester is predicated on the solidity of Labour seats in, for example, Scotland. While Scotland was secure, it could be argued that Kent did not matter. Now, however, Scotland is not secure. As a result, Kent again matters.
Owen Jones tweets: Greens will be rightly chirpy about driving the Lib Dems into fifth place in the latest YouGov. Labour back to 3 point lead. Not good enough
Ah, it's the trend one has to watch, they say. With the lead tripling every day, we'll be up at 120% in no time.
Alternatively, as Richard N has suggested, not that much is happening, except that obviously UKIP is stronger. We may have to await the by-election to see any major shift - if then.
Owen Jones tweets: Greens will be rightly chirpy about driving the Lib Dems into fifth place in the latest YouGov. Labour back to 3 point lead. Not good enough
Ah, it's the trend one has to watch, they say. With the lead tripling every day, we'll be up at 120% in no time.
Alternatively, as Richard N has suggested, not that much is happening, except that obviously UKIP is stronger. We may have to await the by-election to see any major shift - if then.
I don't know how much of an 'on the ground' organisation the Greens have to capitalise on the leftish 'I'm not voting for the traditional three' vote....then of course, if its 'Red Liberals' giving up on Miliband, the consequences could be more interesting......
A year or so ago with the LDs on 10 or thereabouts and I'd have said they stood a reasonable chance of getting into the mid teens, as the thought they could oe than the LDs doing so.
That is a key tspiral.
You don't half posto play .
I'd have been inc.
I am old enough to remember similar comments after the 1970 GE and again after the 1979 GE that the ( then ) Liberals would not recover from those setbacks . In fact there was recovery within a year in both cases .
Hence why I scoff at people thinking the LDs are completely done as a political force, which is partly because the big two so desperately want it to be true, particularly with UKIP to contend with now as well, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the LD share once new leadership comes in and they are out of government. Do you anticipate a recovery within a year or two in the event of a Lab majority, or that the LDs can actually recover some ground even if they are, somehow, in coalition with someone?
My personal thoughts are that it is essential that the Lib Dems go into opposition after the next GE and not into coalition with anyone . Provided they do this then yes I see a recovery within 1/2 years .
Why should the Lib Dems recover in 1-2 years? It took the Tories and Labour 13 and 18 years respectively to recover from their previous lows.
I've posted before that I think you can divide 2010 LD voters into 5 groups:
1) True LD supporters 2) Green supporters who vote tactically for LDs where Green has no chance 3) Former Lab voters who defected to the LDs over Iraq 4) Lab voters who tactically vote LD in LD-Con seats 5) Anti-establishment/anti-politics votes
Group 3 left straightaway when the coalition formed. Some of Group 4 also left and the rest can't be taken for granted. Group 5 has started leaving since the rise of UKIP. Group 2 now seems to be starting to move towards the Greens as the LDs are so weak nationally. That just leaves Group 1 and even some of those have left.
The danger for the LDs is that the Greens are not so dissimilar on many issues. If the LDs don't recover after the next election then their supporters may start to see them as a lost cause and more may defect to the Greens
The LD's position is shown by the frankly incredible movements since PP launched their Lost Deposits market. The top band was 151+, they've since added a new band of 201+ and even that is 6/4 now!
How much is deposit? £500? Even assuming virtually nil other spending in hundreds of seats, still a disappointment to have to write off hundreds of that amount just to keep up appearances about national ambitions.
In most previous elections the Liberals/Lib Dems have taken out insurance against a large number of lost deposits and I presume they will do so this time .
You can't magically insure the liability away, only the worst case scenario. Looking at PP's market the premium [right now] to cover all lost deposits would probably be £100k, more or less.
Garethofthevale I have voted LD locally since 2010 though I have always voted Tory at general, I could not have voted for them under Charles Kennedy locally or nationally
Have an old school friend who is married to a lassie Mississippi and now lives there, his wife attended Mississippi State University and was very quick to share this news with us yesterday.
Comments
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/nicola-sturgeon-in-call-over-eu-referendum-1-3587376
I guess the same logic should apply to Scottish independence, if any major constitutional change which affects all four home nations of the Union has to be agreed by all four home nations of the Union?
Con: David Warburton
Lab: David Oakensen
LD: David Rendel
UKIP: Roger Clark
Greens: Theo Simon
Sitting LD MP David Heath is standing down. He was first elected in 1997 and won the seat 3 times with majorities of less than 1,000.
There was no Green candidate in 2010.
UKIP - £229,500
Greens - £164,000
BNP - £133,000
English Dems - £53,000
Christian - £35,500
Labour - £2,500
Tory - £1,000
LD - £0
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-NIcky-Morgan-changes-mind-gay/story-23737529-detail/story.html
Here we are talking about a fall of 18% at least.
In 1970 they lost 6 seats, in 1979 they lost 2 seats.
Here we are talking about 30 seats so far.
The magnitude is on average 10 times more than your previous experiences.
Artist You go on who are rising in the polls at the timeand Sweden and New Zealand happily have election debates with 6 or more parties. The Greens also had an MP before UKIP and beat the LDs in the European elections
Me and Cammo agree to rip up the 2Bn Euro bill.
And you lot are like: ungrateful
Charming
Disclaimer: MarkSenior doesn't consider me a sane person.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-33/local-elections-2014
And with that goodnight.
(I'm not wasting any more time debating about electoral political party has-been's)
Fun bet/serious bet/hopefully fix it bet
I'm be on Lewis at the US very very soon.
Brisky will confirm
Lewis 1.61
Nico 3.25
You can't get the prices...
LibDems 10
UKIP 4
Con 1
Labour 0
I'm much more successful betting on Politics and to a lesser extent on Footy and by AVOIDING betting on horses which I view as a licence to lose money.
I could see them potentially dropping by about 25-30% in Sheffield Central.
http://www.weather.com/news/hawaii-lava-flow-update-20141029
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article3408262.html
17.4 at Newark and Wythenshawe by-elections
17.2 at Manchester Central by-election
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/us-midterms/
Entries close 7pm Monday.
Also available, Romania, closes 12 noon Sunday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/romania/
Many thanks,
DC
Night all.
If he does, I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP sneak through in that one with a lowish share of the vote (<30%).
And all Around The World-
The Question was-
A - Why did you kill him?
And Answer was-
A - I definately f*cking didn't I say him in the pub not that long ago
B - He didn't have any Gcse's
C - a bit ra ish
I will almost definately not get this right FTR
My horse, my horse, my kingdom for an Excel
Team casio were very specific about not being particularly good with numbers.
PS - I don't think you're winning RobD
Elizabeth Warren right about middle class hardship, minority misery.
Real challenge to @HillaryClinton
Independents generally caucus with the Dems
We did manage to end the QE y'know..
For Miliband, a point of real crisis has now been reached. This crisis is all about the number of seats he needs to win. Miliband’s refusal to chase votes in southern English seats such as Rochester is predicated on the solidity of Labour seats in, for example, Scotland. While Scotland was secure, it could be argued that Kent did not matter. Now, however, Scotland is not secure. As a result, Kent again matters.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/miliband-point-of-no-return-rochester-come-out-fighting
1 MS State
2 FL State
3 Auburn
4 Ole Miss
3 of the 4 teams are SEC teams. The mutterings have already started about SEC bias.
And good luck if you don't have a casio
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maureen-lipman-says-she-cant-vote-labour-while-ed-miliband-is-leader-9827294.html
Alternatively, as Richard N has suggested, not that much is happening, except that obviously UKIP is stronger. We may have to await the by-election to see any major shift - if then.
1) True LD supporters
2) Green supporters who vote tactically for LDs where Green has no chance
3) Former Lab voters who defected to the LDs over Iraq
4) Lab voters who tactically vote LD in LD-Con seats
5) Anti-establishment/anti-politics votes
Group 3 left straightaway when the coalition formed. Some of Group 4 also left and the rest can't be taken for granted. Group 5 has started leaving since the rise of UKIP. Group 2 now seems to be starting to move towards the Greens as the LDs are so weak nationally. That just leaves Group 1 and even some of those have left.
The danger for the LDs is that the Greens are not so dissimilar on many issues. If the LDs don't recover after the next election then their supporters may start to see them as a lost cause and more may defect to the Greens