politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Tories can keep their losses to LAB down to fewer th

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Tories can keep their losses to LAB down to fewer than 38 seats then they should come out with most seats

Given the political and betting importance of which party wins most seats I’ve been looking at the maths to try to get a broad figure of what would be a CON victory on seats or a CON defeat. I’ve made several assumptions that clearly will impact on the equation.

Read the full story here

peter_from_putney

First ..... again!

RobD

God dammit Peter!! Sniping me again!

peter_from_putney

You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!

RobD

peter_from_putney said:

You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!

Real early in the morning?

MikeSmithson

peter_from_putney said:

You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!

For a suitable donation to the site I could arrange for you to win every day.

RobD

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!

For a suitable donation to the site I could arrange for you to win every day.

Cheeky. Trying to start a bidding war?

peter_from_putney

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!

For a suitable donation to the site I could arrange for you to win every day.

But it's the thrill of the chase Mike .... even your own son has become caught up with it before now!

peter_from_putney

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Indigo

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

We have RAF Mount Pleasant there now, with a wing of Typhoons based there and a couple of thousand men including substantial anti-aircraft assets. This means a) it would be a lot harder to take than before, and b) attacking a British base would probably be considered an act of war.

Innocent_Abroad

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

What a wonderful wind-up by the Tory right and Murdoch's Minions. Obvious subtext: Cammo's no Iron Lady!

Sean_F

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.

Paul_Mid_Beds

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

And preumably Argentinas weapons could hit us at 45 minutes notice.

Just because parliament is dissolved it dosen't mean there isn't a government.

Jackanory la la, Jackanory......Propaganda la la Propaganda...

Innocent_Abroad

Test

Innocent_Abroad

Ah. The post counter has stalled, I see.

Innocent_Abroad

And started again. Truly weird.

Paul_Mid_Beds

Bye bye Squeaker Goodbye..

Whatever happens to the squeaker, MPs in the next parliament will need to be very fit as they will be attending a lot of long all day and late night parliamentary sesssions if the next election is as close as is being made out. About as much fun as Stalingrad for them.

I forecast a lot of by elections as MPs die or resign under the pressure if the opinion polls are correct.

Indigo

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

And preumably Argentinas weapons could hit us at 45 minutes notice.

Just because parliament is dissolved it dosen't mean there isn't a government.

Jackanory la la, Jackanory......Propaganda la la Propaganda...

Largely Argentinian propaganda to make a bit of a fizz in their press and distract the population from the failing economy and the fumbling government I would think. We haven't sent load of men down there from what I read, its more just a reaction to their changed posture letting them know we are keeping an eye on things and warning them to be sensible, and because if their posture changed and we did nothing, and things subsequently went sour the government here would get it in the neck for having not taken appropriate action.

(But yes, I dare say an Argentine Mirage could get from Tandil airbase to Stanley in about 45 minutes)

DecrepitJohnL

Innocent_Abroad said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

What a wonderful wind-up by the Tory right and Murdoch's Minions. Obvious subtext: Cammo's no Iron Lady!

The obvious subtext is don't back Hammond as next Tory leader if the spotlight is to be shone on the depleted state of our armed forces.

OblitusSumMe

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.

For example, the four Typhoons are probably sufficient to defeat the entire Argentine Air Force.

Casino_Royale

On topic, I've reached exactly the same conclusion as OGH. Although I think on assumption (1) Conservatives will do slightly better, enough to overcome the deficit within assumption (3).

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.

For now.. Incidentally, I note the Conservatives have now added "Defence" as a policy area to their campaign video portfolio on youtube.

Fallon doesn't say much over and above the £160bn equipment budget, commitment to renew Trident and attacking Labour for their £38bn black hole, though.

Pong

2010:

Lab 32.4 + 1.5 = 33.9%
Con 35.2 -1.5 = 33.7%

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/13/david-herdson-says-lab-most-votes-con-most-seats-is-a-good-bet-at-66-1/

Is it still value at 20/1?

OblitusSumMe

In 1992 Labour made 36 net gains from the Conservatives, which on these assumptions would put Labour just four seats behind. I expect a more complete Labour wipeout in Scotland, so that would increase the margin somewhat.

OblitusSumMe

Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.

For now.. Incidentally, I note the Conservatives have now added "Defence" as a policy area to their campaign video portfolio on youtube.

Fallon doesn't say much over and above the £160bn equipment budget, commitment to renew Trident and attacking Labour for their £38bn black hole, though.

No worries. We're an aid superpower.

SMukesh

Lab swing in England is around 4.5%.

Overall swing doesn't really matter as pretty much all Con-Lab marginals are in England.

I agree with Mike that Lab losses to SNP will be 30 or possibly less.

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, I've reached exactly the same conclusion as OGH. Although I think on assumption (1) Conservatives will do slightly better, enough to overcome the deficit within assumption (3).

Currently, the swing to Labour in England is about 4%.

Innocent_Abroad

The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England.

DavidL

It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.

So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.

My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.

bigjohnowls

OblitusSumMe said:

Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.

LAB 1.58
CON 2.22

in Croydon Central and yet Lab most seats is still 3.15 incredible value IMO

Indigo

What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.

Charles

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.

Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while

DavidL

bigjohnowls said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.

LAB 1.58
CON 2.22

in Croydon Central and yet Lab most seats is still 3.15 incredible value IMO

I agree it is incredible value but the safer bet is still probably Ed as next PM. For all practical purposes this seems to eliminate the Scotland effect given the current position of the SNP.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.

So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.

My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.

A further issue is whether Tory MPs first elected in 2010 have built up any personal following. In general, those who were elected in 2005 did so.

bigjohnowls

Innocent_Abroad said:

The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England.

Which ones?

Or do you mean net England gains in which case you are wrong

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.

Is the Tory candidate in B&B straight? Will he remain so?

Sean_F

Indigo said:

What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.

UKIP will probably get a big vote, but it will be safe Conservative.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, I've reached exactly the same conclusion as OGH. Although I think on assumption (1) Conservatives will do slightly better, enough to overcome the deficit within assumption (3).

Currently, the swing to Labour in England is about 4%.

I'm pretty confident the Tories will clock 35-36% on the day. The question is where Labour will drop out.

If I had to make a forecast, I'd say around 32%. I also think the Conservatives will gain more from the Liberal Democrats than they.

DavidL

Charles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.

Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while

Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.

Casino_Royale

Indigo said:

What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.

Outside the major cities, university towns and where public sector graduates congregate (schools) virtually no one reads the Guardian.

Easterross

Good morning all and delighted to see OGH has based a thread on what I have been saying for weeks, look at the target seats and the projections. With Labour hoping at best to get 39 out of its top 50 Tory targets, it will fall some way short of largest party status.

Don't forget about seats the Tories are likely to snatch from Labour for all manner of local reasons.

Some thoughts for the day.
Notwithstanding all the expert opinion on here to the contrary, the Coalition government has gone the full 5 year course.
Cameron and Clegg did not do a Blair/Brown, even Cable remained inside the tent to the very end.
It is SLAB not SCon we are talking about getting wiped out.

In 1992 it was the 11 SCon MPs which gave John Major his overall majority of 21.

Casino_Royale

Innocent_Abroad said:

The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England.

Which ones?

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.

So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.

My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.

A further issue is whether Tory MPs first elected in 2010 have built up any personal following. In general, those who were elected in 2005 did so.

I agree that should be an issue but as Mike has pointed out there is precious little evidence for it in the polling. If anything the polling indicates Labour outperforming their average in the marginals. That may change of course.

Easterross

Surely if Bercow realises that he has lost the confidence of the largest party in the HoC he should do the decent thing and walk away. Cameron and Miliband will both guarantee him the Peerage automatically accorded to a former Speaker.

Lindsey Hoyle the Labour man would be a much better speaker. I get the impression he is very well liked by the Coalition benches.

peter_from_putney

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

bigjohnowls

DavidL said:

bigjohnowls said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.

LAB 1.58
CON 2.22

in Croydon Central and yet Lab most seats is still 3.15 incredible value IMO

I agree it is incredible value but the safer bet is still probably Ed as next PM. For all practical purposes this seems to eliminate the Scotland effect given the current position of the SNP.

That has been backed right in to 2.20 in last couple of days and I have taken a fair bit of profit in recent times.

I think the 3.15 will eventually move to about 2.50 at least so more profit to come on that (I hope)

Indigo

DavidL said:

Charles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.

Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while

Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.

Yes, its nonsense for their media, we didn't have any AH-64 last time either.

Easterross

Another thought for the day, the Government has lost very few seats during the length of Parliament. I reckon Corby, Claction and Rochester are the only ones. Have I missed any out?

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.

So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.

My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.

A further issue is whether Tory MPs first elected in 2010 have built up any personal following. In general, those who were elected in 2005 did so.

I agree that should be an issue but as Mike has pointed out there is precious little evidence for it in the polling. If anything the polling indicates Labour outperforming their average in the marginals. That may change of course.

There may not have been much polling evidence for it in March 2010, (in relation to those elected in 2005) but it happened. But, maybe that tranche of MP s was exceptionally hard-working.

logical_song

Back to the '50s looks about right:
"UKIP more likely than the population as a whole to support the death penalty (75% to 48%), consider young people do not have enough respect for British values (86% to 66%), and believe that people who want to have children should get married (46% to 23%)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32055110

peter_from_putney

Cameron and Miliband will both guarantee him the Peerage automatically accorded to a former Speaker.

True enough. But how would he and Sally possibly cope without the very considerable tax free grace & favour perks?

SMukesh

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

Gadfly

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

DavidL

Indigo said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.

Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while

Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.

Yes, its nonsense for their media, we didn't have any AH-64 last time either.

If we could get them there, in terrain without even significant tree cover, the only rational response would be surrender.

SMukesh

Looking at the papers,both the Daily Mail and Times starting to hedge their bets by reporting more Con negative news in recent days.

bigjohnowls

SMukesh said:

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

Ties in with my posts for last 12 months

TBH most PB Tories have refused to believe instead favouring Wales Tourettes.

Charles

DavidL said:

Charles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.

Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while

Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.

A agree, but I thought we'd withdrawn the standard destroyer that patrols the south atlantic? So don't know if we would be there in time to intercept an invasion fleet

Easterross

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Pulpstar

Massive SNP -> UKIP swing in Scotland I see from the latest Yougov

Sean_F

SMukesh said:

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.

peter_from_putney

It would be interesting to learn whether today's motion for the post -GE election of the Speaker is some form of personal vendetta against Bercow by William Hague on his last day in office or whether it is a cunning plan, dreamed up in the inner sanctum of CCHQ?

Charles

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

Trust in the good sense of the British people.

Vote with your heart

bigjohnowls

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

Sean_F

logical_song said:

Back to the '50s looks about right:
"UKIP more likely than the population as a whole to support the death penalty (75% to 48%), consider young people do not have enough respect for British values (86% to 66%), and believe that people who want to have children should get married (46% to 23%)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32055110

Judging by the survey, those viewpoints seem pretty mainstream among the population as a whole.

Charles

peter_from_putney said:

Cameron and Miliband will both guarantee him the Peerage automatically accorded to a former Speaker.

True enough. But how would he and Sally possibly cope without the very considerable tax free grace & favour perks?

This might help

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/13/commons-speaker-keep-1m-pension

Scott_P

peter_from_putney said:

It would be interesting to learn whether today's motion for the post -GE election of the Speaker is some form of personal vendetta against Bercow by William Hague on his last day in office or whether it is a cunning plan, dreamed up in the inner sanctum of CCHQ?

@faisalislam: ..so oct 2011 report did recommend House decide on a secret ballot over a contested Speaker reelection: vote today. http://t.co/RzmWd2uWkj

Alanbrooke

Birmingham threatened with new crime wave.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11492144/New-bank-rules-send-HSBC-north-to-Birmingham.html

TGOHF

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Have the coalition done a good job ?

Have Labour presented a wonderful prospectus for govt ?

Does Ed look like a PM in waiting ?

Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..

peter_from_putney

Easterross: " Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way."

Precisely the point emphasised by OGH very recently, only the other way around of course!

bigjohnowls

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.

73% overall satisfaction in April 2010 and A&E also down since 2010 according to Kings Fund

OldKingCole

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Is there a small upward trend in the LD vote?

Is there a straw I see to clutch?

The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD” rather than hoping/expecting to see LD “GAIN” flashing up.

bigjohnowls

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Have the coalition done a good job ?

Have Labour presented a wonderful prospectus for govt ?

Does Ed look like a PM in waiting ?

Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..

80 seats are you mad 40 gives EICIPM

Innocent_Abroad

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

I don't think anyone an say with assurance this far out, but the obvious place to start - from a betting POV - are the ones with majorities under, say, 2,000 - where the sitting MP is standing down and the new Labour candidate isn't local. The information is all on the Internet, it just needs someone (not me ) to dig it out...

peter_from_putney

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..

I suspect that if you wired BJO up to a lie detector he'd be going for around half that number of wins for the Red Team.

Pulpstar

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.

They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.

Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP

bigjohnowls

Well both innocent abroad and Easteross seem to think Lab to Con gains but have so far failed to name which seats they think will go blue

peter_from_putney

BJO ...... Snap!

bigjohnowls

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.

They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.

Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP

I reckon Respect has a chance in Halifax so potentially Con could come through the middle.

Alanbrooke

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic but potentially important -

Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.

Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.

And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?

Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.

Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while

Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.

A agree, but I thought we'd withdrawn the standard destroyer that patrols the south atlantic? So don't know if we would be there in time to intercept an invasion fleet

There more fun part is what damage is La kirchner doing to Argentine US relations.

Currently she's traded Chinese ambitions on Taiwan and Russian ambitions in the Crimea for their support on the Falklands. Can't see hat being a sustainable position with the White House.

Pulpstar

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.

They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.

Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP

I reckon Respect has a chance in Halifax so potentially Con could come through the middle.

There ain't too many more, I've looked and would be backing the Tories if there were.

Scrapheap_as_was

BBC journalism

Ross Hawkins‏@rosschawkins·2m2 minutes ago
Boris Johnson has arrived in Downing St. His bike reclining unlocked on the railings as if to the manor born pic.twitter.com/TpJmcjbtTG

bigjohnowls

peter_from_putney said:

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..

I suspect that if you wired BJO up to a lie detector he'd be going for around half that number of wins for the Red Team.

Never thought anywhere near 80.

40 would be EICIPM IMO

peter_from_putney

OKC: The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD”

I see you're in optimistic mode this morning!

Pong

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

Interesting peter.

Betfair makes it about a 37% chance Con seats will fall between 276-300.

If you think there's a higher than 63% chance that it will fall outside of this band, you can lay @ ~2.8

bigjohnowls

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.

They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.

Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP

I reckon Respect has a chance in Halifax so potentially Con could come through the middle.

There ain't too many more, I've looked and would be backing the Tories if there were.

Perhaps Easteross and or Innocent Abroad could enlighten us.

MarqueeMark

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

OK, to get the ball rolling....

Halifax
Southampton Itchen
Bootle

peter_from_putney

bigjohnowls said:

peter_from_putney said:

TGOHF said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..

I suspect that if you wired BJO up to a lie detector he'd be going for around half that number of wins for the Red Team.

Never thought anywhere near 80.

40 would be EICIPM IMO

Like I said ....Snap!

Casino_Royale

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

On my analysis, the Lib Dem seat spread is a mile wide but an inch deep.
Could range from 17 to 33 seats. I have them at 25 seats.

YBarddCwsc

"Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?"

An interesting question.

How about ones where [1] a longstanding MP is stepping down, [2] demographic changes are slowly making the seat more Tory in any case, and [3] the opponent is well established and has come close to winning the seat before.

Gower in Wales has [1] Martin Caton stepping down;[2] it is a Labour seat since 1918, but the majority is now down to 2,638 having decreased steadily from a high water mark of 20,000 in the sixties, the industrial areas in the North of the seat are depopulating, and the South is gentrifying [3] the Tory opponent Byron Davies has fought the seat before and in the Welsh Assembly elections came within a few hundred of taking the seat. He is a fairly visible list AM for the area.

Even in a big victory -- some seat always buck the trend.

MarqueeMark

Worth noting that if Labour get 40 seats it well represent a total failure of the CCHQ 40-40 strategy - and by extension Lynton Crosby.

And if Labour get 40 plus seats off the Tories, it will mean that the market towns of England have taken Ed to their hearts.....

foxinsoxuk

OldKingCole said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Is there a small upward trend in the LD vote?

Is there a straw I see to clutch?

The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD” rather than hoping/expecting to see LD “GAIN” flashing up.

I have bet against my team for solace. So if Eastleigh or Yeovil fall then at least I can afford to drown my sorrows!

Indigo

bigjohnowls said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.

73% overall satisfaction in April 2010 and A&E also down since 2010 according to Kings Fund

This would be the same left-leaning Kings Fund that said the NHS was the best in the world at counting paper-clips and sorting out the filing, but never mind about minor details like patient outcomes and mortality ?

MarqueeMark

YBarddCwsc said:

"Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?"

An interesting question.

How about ones where [1] a longstanding MP is stepping down, [2] demographic changes are slowly making the seat more Tory in any case, and [3] the opponent is well established and has come close to winning the seat before.

Gower in Wales has [1] Martin Caton stepping down;[2] it is a Labour seat since 1918, but the majority is now down to 2,638 having decreased steadily from a high water mark of 20,000 in the sixties, the industrial areas in the North of the seat are depopulating, and the South is gentrifying [3] the Tory opponent Byron Davies has fought the seat before and in the Welsh Assembly elections came within a few hundred of taking the seat. He is a fairly visible list AM for the area.

Even in a big victory -- some seat always buck the trend.

CCHQ think Gower is worth a punt....

weejonnie

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.

It's a typical BBC left-wing spin on the figures. The NHS is PERFORMING a lot better than the 1990s, however the DECLINE in the performance (first differential) is the worst since the 1990s.

Graphs also show the increase in consultants and reduction in managers (other staffing remaining relatively steady) and that until this year there was a £400 - £500 million surplus in NHS funding.

No doubt if the NHS was still improving the BBC would be reporting that the rate of improvement was slowing down.

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Easterross said:

peter_from_putney said:

I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!

Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?

I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.

Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?

The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.

They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.

Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP

Birmingham Northfield is still my ultimate fantasy. I got on at 12/1.

Tories won the locals last year with a stable vote share, Labour leeched a mass of voters to UKIP and they have a good hardworking candidate. It's also a 40:40 target.

I think it could be under the radar, and close.

bigjohnowls

I think a surprise LAB gain might be High Peak if LAB activists there are to be believed

LAB 2.26 but according to aforesaid activists on a knife edge.

DYOR Activists do not always have their fingers on the pulse.

Innocent_Abroad

I've tried to, John. But these things are very hard to call - who would've expected the Tories to take Winchester last time. I expect the swing to the Tories not to start until perhaps 10 days before polling, and maybe most of it to occur in the last 24 hours. I certainly don't expect the pollsters to pick it up. A large part of it will be differential turnout by age (oldies high, under 30s low) so perhaps one could also look at Labour seats with majorities below 4k or 5k where the electorate is disproportionately grey and/or fewer than average pubic sector workers/pensioners.

Sean_F

OldKingCole said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Is there a small upward trend in the LD vote?

Is there a straw I see to clutch?

The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD” rather than hoping/expecting to see LD “GAIN” flashing up.

I reckon the Lib Dems could win 10% or so, given extra coverage in the campaign.

bigjohnowls

weejonnie said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.

It's a typical BBC left-wing spin on the figures. The NHS is PERFORMING a lot better than the 1990s, however the DECLINE in the performance (first differential) is the worst since the 1990s.

Graphs also show the increase in consultants and reduction in managers (other staffing remaining relatively steady) and that until this year there was a £400 - £500 million surplus in NHS funding.

No doubt if the NHS was still improving the BBC would be reporting that the rate of improvement was slowing down.

Only a fool cannot see a decline in clinical performance and finances of Hospitals since 2010

bigjohnowls

Innocent_Abroad said:

I've tried to, John. But these things are very hard to call - who would've expected the Tories to take Winchester last time. I expect the swing to the Tories not to start until perhaps 10 days before polling, and maybe most of it to occur in the last 24 hours. I certainly don't expect the pollsters to pick it up. A large part of it will be differential turnout by age (oldies high, under 30s low) so perhaps one could also look at Labour seats with majorities below 4k or 5k where the electorate is disproportionately grey and/or fewer than average pubic sector workers/pensioners.

Thanks