Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s London progress could be masking a bigger trend: t

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited March 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s London progress could be masking a bigger trend: the party’s putting on most support where it doesn’t need it

The latest spate of London polls has been very positive for Labour with vote shares in the capital up 9% or more on 2010. It really does look as though the party is going to do very well there.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    Hell Yeah!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Hell naaaaah to the BBC
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    Too much data.

    And too long a campaign.

    Wake me up when the exit poll is published!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    The 2015 Tory vote is like the Tory chancellor, much leaner!
  • Just taking part in an epic YouGov poll.

    Varied from fracking to why Dave isn't doing the head to head debate
  • Eh_ehm_a_ehEh_ehm_a_eh Posts: 552
    28 SLAB seats. Not enough Nicola. Bring back Eck.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    28 SLAB seats. Not enough Nicola. Bring back Eck.

    I thought Alex was in charge? Titters...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    First 8 mins of BBC1 6pm News - report on the economy / GE - lots of coverage of the Conservatives (Osborne), a bit less of Labour (Balls). Landale sum up was entirely about Con and Lab.

    LDs - literally 5 second clip of Danny Alexander - ignored in the sum-up. UKIP (and everyone else) - not even mentioned - not one single second of coverage.

    Early signs are that UKIP Major Party status is reducing coverage of the LDs (when there were three major parties they could all be fitted in, when four they can't - so they reduce the LDs - and the end result is almost total focus on the big two).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    It is a damn shame that put you off standing. I haven't heard any stories of such things happening (but I don't really read local newspapers). One can hope it isn't as widespread as your colleague suggested.
  • On topic, re Labour in London, I've been wondering that for a while.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Regional polls out today all show Con vote holding up pretty well:

    YouGov London - down 0.5%
    YouGov Wales - down 1%
    ComRes Scotland - down 0.5%

    All very marginal declines.
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    edited March 2015
    On ComRes Scots poll; according to STV news it was 1000 votes in 40 Labour held constituencies. They did also suggest that Milliblands standing amongst the voters had improved, at that point they blew away any credibility this poll might have had for me. I haven't seen the other figures yet though. Curious as to which Labour seat they didn't harass the voters in.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    79% want the SNP to form a majority government?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
  • roserees64roserees64 Posts: 251
    Two good polls for Labour tonight, the tide seems to be turning in Scotland or maybe the silent voters are now speaking up.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited March 2015
    Is this ‘first of its kind’ ComRes Scottish phone poll likely to feature much in the run up to the election? - Would be interested to know how many polls they have planned between now and then, and why, quite honestly, they’ve left it so late.

    Oops - and good evening all.
  • antifrank said:

    79% want the SNP to form a majority government?
    That's the obvious conclusion
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025

    28 SLAB seats. Not enough Nicola. Bring back Eck.

    But remember they will take at least 8 Lib Dem seats as well. And have 6. So that is 42. Just utterly dominant. And that is getting close to a worst case scenario for them. As a Unionist first and foremost this campaign is not developing necessarily to our advantage.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    On ComRes Scots poll; according to STV news it was 1000 votes in 40 Labour held constituencies. They did also suggest that Milliblands standing amongst the voters had improved, at that point they blew away any credibility this poll might have had for me. I haven't seen the other figures yet though. Curious as to which Labour seat they didn't harass the voters in.

    Haven't other polls shown an increase in Ed's approval rating?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    It would only be David Cameron's fault if he accepted the demands. I would like to think he's a decent enough chap to rule out such conditions. But I would regard him as breaking his pledge if he agreed one in a way that is engineered to favour his own side.

    If the electorate put him in a position where he's in thrall to other parties, then he's in thrall to other parties. Reality trumps everything else.

    There's a simple enough remedy to avoid all such unpleasantness; it's in the hands of those who most complain about him. If they choose not to take it, then that's up to them.
    So us Conservative supporters should have pledges to us betrayed because of the Kippers? No thank you!

    There are a great many of us in the party that have spent hours out in the freezing rain knocking on doors to get Conservative MPs to power. Those of us with more conservative views have had to accept a lot in the modernization of the party, and have accepted it even though we're sceptical of the leadership on issues like the European Union. Part of that acceptance has been because we have been promised some firm action: a reckoning with Brussels where we get some powers back, and then we put it to the people to judge how good that deal was. If 'the people' is changed to include foreign nationals and school children to get it past then the party would destroy any remaining trust they have from the activist base on this issue. I can not see many things pushing me to join UKIP, but that is one of them.
  • Is this ‘first of its kind’ ComRes Scottish phone poll likely to feature much in the run up to the election? - Would be interested to know how many polls they have planned between now and then, and why, quite honestly, they’ve left it so late.

    We're getting at least 6 more ComRes/ITV/Daily Mail National VI polls between now and election day.

    Unfortunately polls cost a lot of money (especially phone polls) and the indyref cost a lot of unexpected polling that ate into GE budgets for the media.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Zombies. You just have to go for zombies.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363

    Two good polls for Labour tonight, the tide seems to be turning in Scotland or maybe the silent voters are now speaking up.

    Those polls were in existing Labour constituencies. Not Scotland as a whole. Have you allowed for that?

  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    RobD said:

    On ComRes Scots poll; according to STV news it was 1000 votes in 40 Labour held constituencies. They did also suggest that Milliblands standing amongst the voters had improved, at that point they blew away any credibility this poll might have had for me. I haven't seen the other figures yet though. Curious as to which Labour seat they didn't harass the voters in.

    Haven't other polls shown an increase in Ed's approval rating?
    In Scotland he is seen as a Cameron glove puppet and that is being polite about it. Any poll that shows his approval ratings rising in Scotland thus lose credibility.

  • DavidL said:

    Zombies. You just have to go for zombies.
    I did go for Zombies
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited March 2015
    Was the poll with his(ed's) improved ratings the one from the post debate . if so, treat with care.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I do not have any involvement publicly with UKIP anymore due to the abuse which local branch members have received.

    Onion News Network: Every 2040 Presidential Candidate Already Unelectable Due To Facebook

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/onion-news-network-every-2040-candidate-facebook-video_n_1461371.html?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pong said:

    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
    There are many reasons that I would not stand for public office, but top of the list is that I would not want to put my other half or the rest of my family through the wringer.

    (Actually, that's second - top of the list is that no one in their right mind would vote for me.)
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723

    On topic, re Labour in London, I've been wondering that for a while.

    Can anyone get hold of up to date electorate numbers in seats like East Ham, West Ham, Holborn & St Pancras, Bethnal Green & Bow etc (not figures on Boundary Commission website which are out of date).

    If electorates in these seats are growing massively it's all pointing in the direction of significantly increased inefficiency of the Lab vote.

    If Con vote stays static it is just about impossible for Con to lose more than 5 seats to Lab in London.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346
    Excellent piece by Isabel Hardman. I think she may be referring to people like us for much of it:
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/westminster-sneers-at-joey-essex-because-it-is-a-closed-shop-of-know-it-alls/

    I'm always upset by how few people really "get" politics and sometimes that's bled into looking down on them. I must do better.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,963
    edited March 2015
    antifrank said:

    Pong said:

    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
    There are many reasons that I would not stand for public office, but top of the list is that I would not want to put my other half or the rest of my family through the wringer.

    (Actually, that's second - top of the list is that no one in their right mind would vote for me.)
    I'd vote for you.

    The reason I'd never be a good MP, my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble.

    (and my ability to be commendably/recklessly honest)
  • MikeL said:

    On topic, re Labour in London, I've been wondering that for a while.

    Can anyone get hold of up to date electorate numbers in seats like East Ham, West Ham, Holborn & St Pancras, Bethnal Green & Bow etc (not figures on Boundary Commission website which are out of date).

    If electorates in these seats are growing massively it's all pointing in the direction of significantly increased inefficiency of the Lab vote.

    If Con vote stays static it is just about impossible for Con to lose more than 5 seats to Lab in London.
    Pass, but I'll ask some people who might know.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    Pong said:

    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
    There are many reasons that I would not stand for public office, but top of the list is that I would not want to put my other half or the rest of my family through the wringer.

    (Actually, that's second - top of the list is that no one in their right mind would vote for me.)
    I'd vote for you.
    You're proving my point.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    It seems like Labour have boomed in London but collapsed in Scotland. I imagine the effect of the former has less effect on the national figures than the latter does, due to the scale of the collapse there. That means Labour is probably slightly above where a uniform national swing would suggest they were in the rest of England and Wales.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,155
    Just saw the SNP ppb for the first time, quite edgy.

    Going for the jugular: 'Labour used to stand up to the Tories, they don't any more.'
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    I've been looking into the Rune's.

    Tonight's YouGov prediciton (Just For Fun)

    Con Lead 3%
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    Next Tory leader on Ch 4 News!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited March 2015
    JEO said:

    So us Conservative supporters should have pledges to us betrayed because of the Kippers? No thank you! .

    Sorry, but that makes zero sense. If there is not a majority Conservative government, then, as night follows day, it follows that things will happen which Conservative supporters won't like. That's not betrayal, it's reality.

    In the particular case we are talking about, I agree with you that the LibDem demands, as reported, are yucky. Obviously Cameron would try to do a deal which didn't involve giving in to them, but, if that's the price, that's the price.

    You can just imagine the howls of anguish if Cameron said 'OK, in that case we won't have a referendum.' That really would be a betrayal of promises.

    Alternatively he could let Ed Miliband become PM, or leave the country in chaos with no viable government. Neither is a better solution for Conservative supporters or the country as a whole.

    When you are stuffed, you are stuffed. You have to make the best of a bad job. Ed Miliband will find much the same - indeed much worse - if he ends up in thrall to Ms Sturgeon.

    Of course, all this can very easily be avoided, if the electorate so choose. It's up to them.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386

    Next Tory leader on Ch 4 News!

    Not near a telly! Who is it?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Carnyx said:

    Two good polls for Labour tonight, the tide seems to be turning in Scotland or maybe the silent voters are now speaking up.

    Those polls were in existing Labour constituencies. Not Scotland as a whole. Have you allowed for that?

    Two good polls for Labour tonight, the tide seems to be turning in Scotland or maybe the silent voters are now speaking up.

    You think this is a good poll for Labour in Labour held seats? Seriously?

    "how are the mighty fallen!
    Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

    Or words to that effect.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    antifrank said:

    Pong said:

    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
    There are many reasons that I would not stand for public office, but top of the list is that I would not want to put my other half or the rest of my family through the wringer.

    (Actually, that's second - top of the list is that no one in their right mind would vote for me.)
    I'd vote for you.

    The reason I'd never be a good MP, my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble.

    (and my ability to be commendably/recklessly honest)
    Once you'e excluded those who have or have had a life, those with families and friends they'd rather not expose, those with a sense of humour, those with a sense of irony and those who say what they think, you may as well elect fridges to Parliament. At least they'd be useful.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    antifrank said:

    Pong said:

    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
    There are many reasons that I would not stand for public office, but top of the list is that I would not want to put my other half or the rest of my family through the wringer.

    (Actually, that's second - top of the list is that no one in their right mind would vote for me.)
    I'd vote for you.

    The reason I'd never be a good MP, my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble.

    (and my ability to be commendably/recklessly honest)
    How very selfish. Think of the fun the tabloids are being deprived of.

    Ah, go on.... You know you want to....

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025

    antifrank said:

    Pong said:

    antifrank said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    One of the main reasons I didn't stand for Ukip this time... Someone who is standing told me to prepare for my, and my families, private lives to be investigated by a firm paid by the Tories. My parents are Pensioners w high blood pressure, it didn't seem worth the risk

    Alexandra Swann (@AlexandralSwann)
    31/03/2015 11:17
    Fascist Bullies Hounding UKIP Candidates And Supporters - Breitbart bit.ly/1MssOfh via @BreitbartNews

    I think that's a real pity. And wrong that families should face this sort of intrusion.

    Even if I don't always agree with what you say I find what you say interesting and a valuable addition to this site. No wonder so many MPs are young wet-behind-the-ears Spads if those with any sort of life or past feel unable to put themselves forward.

    I echo all of that.
    Unless you shut down the internet, the gossiping, shaming, spinning & smearing is here to stay.

    We're all public figures now.
    There are many reasons that I would not stand for public office, but top of the list is that I would not want to put my other half or the rest of my family through the wringer.

    (Actually, that's second - top of the list is that no one in their right mind would vote for me.)
    I'd vote for you.

    The reason I'd never be a good MP, my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble.

    (and my ability to be commendably/recklessly honest)
    And your excessive modesty. That would really hold you back.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Monty said:

    Excellent piece by Isabel Hardman. I think she may be referring to people like us for much of it:
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/westminster-sneers-at-joey-essex-because-it-is-a-closed-shop-of-know-it-alls/

    I'm always upset by how few people really "get" politics and sometimes that's bled into looking down on them. I must do better.

    'how few people really get politics' itself is a really fraught concept, as it implies that these others don't have the same concept of politics as you and therefore are wrong. There are many different views of what politics are and what they should be. For most, it is not and should not be all consuming and the minutiae of it all is simply noise. Now ask me who has got that right, us or them, and I'll go with them.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Kalman-filtererd Scotland (nb last national poll ending 19/3/15)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13331381/Scotland.PNG

    SNP 44.9%
    Lab 26.8
    Con 14.9%
    LD 4.3%

    20.1% swing to the SNP, very much in line with today's poll.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    I'm afraid that I disagree with you here Mike.

    I make it that there are 8 Conservative seats in London that would go Labour on a 5% swing or less, plus a couple requiring a bit more which were both neck and neck in 2005 (Finchley & GG, Battersea). Plus it's definitely 3 LD seats which Lab is hoping to gain, 6/4 with Ladbrokes in B&S hardly suggesting that that's in the bag for Hughes. Whether Lab takes seats from Con or LD matters very little if you consider that the main risk to Lab is that of a Con coalition or minority with LD support. Indeed the bigger the pasting the LDs get, the less the risk that the rump of LD MPs will fancy carrying on where they left off with Cameron.

    So that's 11 marginal seats in London which Lab hopes to gain, possibly 13 on a good day for them. Out of 73 that's reasonably consistent with other regions.



  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    JEO said:

    So us Conservative supporters should have pledges to us betrayed because of the Kippers? No thank you! .

    Sorry, but that makes zero sense. If there is not a majority Conservative government, then, as night follows day, it follows that things will happen which Conservative supporters won't like. That's not betrayal, it's reality.

    In the particular case we are talking about, I agree with you that the LibDem demands, as reported, are yucky. Obviously Cameron would try to do a deal which didn't involve giving in to them, but, if that's the price, that's the price.

    You can just imagine the howls of anguish if Cameron said 'OK, in that case we won't have a referendum.' That really would be a betrayal of promises.

    Alternatively he could let Ed Miliband become PM, or leave the country in chaos with no viable government. Neither is a better solution for Conservative supporters or the country as a whole.

    When you are stuffed, you are stuffed. You have to make the best of a bad job. Ed Miliband will find much the same - indeed much worse - if he ends up in thrall to Ms Sturgeon.

    Of course, all this can very easily be avoided, if the electorate so choose. It's up to them.
    If there was a referendum on those terms it would more than likely be to stay in. Europhiles across all parties would claim the issue has been settled and refuse a referendum until there is further integration or the EU is on it's knees. We could be waiting a very long time for another fair shot at it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Two good polls for Labour tonight, the tide seems to be turning in Scotland or maybe the silent voters are now speaking up.

    Those polls were in existing Labour constituencies. Not Scotland as a whole. Have you allowed for that?

    Two good polls for Labour tonight, the tide seems to be turning in Scotland or maybe the silent voters are now speaking up.

    You think this is a good poll for Labour in Labour held seats? Seriously?

    "how are the mighty fallen!
    Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

    Or words to that effect.
    David's lament for Jonathan, I remember my father beating it in to me when I was about seven I used to be able to recite the whole thing !
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited March 2015
    Looking at the ComRes poll data tables

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ITV-News_Scottish-Labour-Constituencies-Poll_31st-March-2015.pdf

    Is it just me or is the voter recall question absolutely and completely bonkers?

    Thinking back to the General Election in 2010 when MPs were last voted to Parliament in Westminster, which party if any did you vote for? Was it Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, some other party, or did you not vote?

    Does it not strike you that there might be a significant party missing there for a Labour-vs-SNP poll?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    UKIP's contribution in GE2015 is not how many MPs they get but how much of the Tory vote they siphon off.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    So us Conservative supporters should have pledges to us betrayed because of the Kippers? No thank you! .

    Sorry, but that makes zero sense. If there is not a majority Conservative government, then, as night follows day, it follows that things will happen which Conservative supporters won't like. That's not betrayal, it's reality.

    In the particular case we are talking about, I agree with you that the LibDem demands, as reported, are yucky. Obviously Cameron would try to do a deal which didn't involve giving in to them, but, if that's the price, that's the price.

    You can just imagine the howls of anguish if Cameron said 'OK, in that case we won't have a referendum.' That really would be a betrayal of promises.

    Alternatively he could let Ed Miliband become PM, or leave the country in chaos with no viable government. Neither is a better solution for Conservative supporters or the country as a whole.

    When you are stuffed, you are stuffed. You have to make the best of a bad job. Ed Miliband will find much the same - indeed much worse - if he ends up in thrall to Ms Sturgeon.

    Of course, all this can very easily be avoided, if the electorate so choose. It's up to them.
    If we're stuffed to the point where we have to effectively break promises and fundamentally erode trust in our party, then we should certainly stand aside and let Labour try to form a government. If they make bad policy then that's on them and they can be judged for it. If we make bad policy then it's on us and we will be judged for it. When you make a coalition you need to make some compromises, but there are red lines. Dishonestly fixing elections to undo one of our few concrete promises by the back door would certainly be crossing it.

    Politicians can't be allowed to choose the electorate to get the result they want. It goes against every principle of democracy. If the Liberal Democrats want to prevent a government forming on that basis, then we should let them and allow the Great British public to judge accordingly.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    This isn't confined to London, it's a trend in quite a lot of the big cities: Liverpool and Manchester had the biggest Labour increases of any council area in last year's European elections.

    There's been a big city/town divergence in recent years' elections which hasn't really been covered by political analysts, with Labour doing well in the major cities but struggling in the smaller "cities" or medium-sized towns (even ones where they've traditionally been strong). So it's hard to tell what the net effect on Labour's vote "efficiency" will be, because the extra votes they disproportionately pile up in safe seats in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Birmingham, etc. might be cancelled out by leaking votes to UKIP in the Heywood & Middleton's.
  • I'm greatly enjoying Dan H and his daily who won today award.

    Surprising start with it now being C 2, L 0, LD 0, Other 0

    The big question is just how high will C go... I'll say 28, L 8, LD 1, Other 1
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the ComRes poll data tables

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ITV-News_Scottish-Labour-Constituencies-Poll_31st-March-2015.pdf

    Is it just me or is the voter recall question absolutely and completely bonkers?

    Thinking back to the General Election in 2010 when MPs were last voted to Parliament in Westminster, which party if any did you vote for? Was it Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, some other party, or did you not vote?

    Does it not strike you that there might be a significant party missing there for a Labour-vs-SNP poll?

    Just because the SNP is not listed , does not mean their past vote was not taken into account.
  • If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    surbiton said:

    Alistair said:

    Looking at the ComRes poll data tables

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ITV-News_Scottish-Labour-Constituencies-Poll_31st-March-2015.pdf

    Is it just me or is the voter recall question absolutely and completely bonkers?

    Thinking back to the General Election in 2010 when MPs were last voted to Parliament in Westminster, which party if any did you vote for? Was it Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, some other party, or did you not vote?

    Does it not strike you that there might be a significant party missing there for a Labour-vs-SNP poll?

    Just because the SNP is not listed , does not mean their past vote was not taken into account.
    I know, but it's odd that they aren't prompted for in a Scotland specific poll.

    Later on the respondents are asked if they are going to vote for Plaid Cymru.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    MP_SE said:

    If there was a referendum on those terms it would more than likely be to stay in.

    Possibly, I don't know if it would actually make much difference or not. I suspect EU migrants would vote in very small numbers, and that's probably true of 16- and 17-year olds as well.

    In practice, I expect an overwhelming Stay In vote anyway.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Interesting. Slightly more ex-Lib Dems have moved to Labour than the SNP. I don't think that was the case two weeks ago.
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the ComRes poll data tables

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ITV-News_Scottish-Labour-Constituencies-Poll_31st-March-2015.pdf

    Is it just me or is the voter recall question absolutely and completely bonkers?

    Thinking back to the General Election in 2010 when MPs were last voted to Parliament in Westminster, which party if any did you vote for? Was it Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, some other party, or did you not vote?

    Does it not strike you that there might be a significant party missing there for a Labour-vs-SNP poll?

    No it isn't just you, it is bonkers. I did question the credibility of the poll earlier without even having seen the figures.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    MP_SE said:

    If there was a referendum on those terms it would more than likely be to stay in.

    Possibly, I don't know if it would actually make much difference or not. I suspect EU migrants would vote in very small numbers, and that's probably true of 16- and 17-year olds as well.

    In practice, I expect an overwhelming Stay In vote anyway.
    I personally think a referendum would be ideal once our trade with the ROW has increased significantly and trade with the EU has declined. The economic arguments would be easier to justify. I am sure this will happen sooner or later but rushing into it now is far from ideal.
  • Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited March 2015
    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    The Battersea wealthy are the nouveau-riche ! Hampstead wealthy are a more liberal type and don't forget Kilburn !
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Anyone know what polls tonight?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    edited March 2015
    The changes in Scotland in these Labour seats since 2010 confirm my assumptions that the Tory vote is basically unchanged and that the 2010 LD in non-LD marginals switch 80% to the SNP.

    However it looks as if only 26% (instead of 32%) of the 2010 Lab switch to the SNP.

    Though it is a small change it makes a big difference.

    My Scottish scenario now looks like this:

    Con 1
    Lab 11
    LD 3
    SNP 44
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    DavidL said:

    Zombies. You just have to go for zombies.
    I did go for Zombies
    It should have specified between fast zombies and slow zombies.

    My own view is that while fast zombies would indeed lead to a full on Zombie Apocalypse, slow zombies would be more likely to just cull the idiots and lead to a stronger, healthier humanity.
  • surbiton said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    The Battersea wealthy are the nouveau-riche ! Hampstead wealthy are a more liberal type and don't forget Kilburn !
    They've been rich in Battersea for two decades now so does that make them "old money" now? :-)
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Just saw the SNP ppb for the first time, quite edgy.

    Going for the jugular: 'Labour used to stand up to the Tories, they don't any more.'

    Also has the added advantage that if the press did a hatchet job on Martin Compston the reaction would be more "aww, that wee Malkie, what a one".
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    I'm greatly enjoying Dan H and his daily who won today award.

    Surprising start with it now being C 2, L 0, LD 0, Other 0

    The big question is just how high will C go... I'll say 28, L 8, LD 1, Other 1

    No. C36, L 0, LD 0, the World 0 and still he would not gte into Downing Street.
  • MikeL said:

    On topic, re Labour in London, I've been wondering that for a while.

    Can anyone get hold of up to date electorate numbers in seats like East Ham, West Ham, Holborn & St Pancras, Bethnal Green & Bow etc (not figures on Boundary Commission website which are out of date).

    If electorates in these seats are growing massively it's all pointing in the direction of significantly increased inefficiency of the Lab vote.

    If Con vote stays static it is just about impossible for Con to lose more than 5 seats to Lab in London.
    The deadline to register to vote is 20th April so presumably full electorates will be released after that. I was going to suggest using council elections but of course EU citizens can vote in the locals and Euros but not the GE
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
    I'm not convinced, the mansion tax will have a huge effect in Hampstead.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
    I'm not convinced, the mansion tax will have a huge effect in Hampstead.
    The mansion tax will have virtually zero effect anywhere
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
    Wandsworth is "rock solid" Tory because of the local council and low council tax, not necessarily because of demographics, although obviously the demographics are constantly moving against Labour. It still has a fairly significant minority Labour representation, it's hardly a Tory shire.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    I'm greatly enjoying Dan H and his daily who won today award.

    Surprising start with it now being C 2, L 0, LD 0, Other 0

    The big question is just how high will C go... I'll say 28, L 8, LD 1, Other 1

    Dan Hodges writing the same column every time? Has this ever happened before?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Zombies. You just have to go for zombies.
    I did go for Zombies
    It should have specified between fast zombies and slow zombies.

    My own view is that while fast zombies would indeed lead to a full on Zombie Apocalypse, slow zombies would be more likely to just cull the idiots and lead to a stronger, healthier humanity.
    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Zombies. You just have to go for zombies.
    I did go for Zombies
    It should have specified between fast zombies and slow zombies.

    My own view is that while fast zombies would indeed lead to a full on Zombie Apocalypse, slow zombies would be more likely to just cull the idiots and lead to a stronger, healthier humanity.
    Sort of a master race? Hmm....
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
    I've lived in this constituency ever since Glenda was elected and she has been largely invisible. To be fair she answers her correspondence and I am probably not her target audience. But I'm sceptical of the personal vote meme. I don't like the Labour candidate much - she's not sound on the issues I care about.

    I was canvassed on Saturday by the Tory candidate: he was very clued up about tactical voting options and came across as very nice and was even complimentary about the Lib Dem candidate, Maajid Nawaz.

    The mansion tax - if levied on houses worth, say, £1 mio or more (or even lower) - would be a huge issue - but not I think at the £2 mio level. Some may change their vote but not enough to make a difference. And the corollary is that there are a lot of people - myself included - who worry about where their children will live and how the hell they will be able to afford it - an issue to which no party seems to have a sensible answer.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Barnesian said:

    The changes in Scotland in these Labour seats since 2010 confirm my assumptions that the Tory vote is basically unchanged and that the 2010 LD in non-LD marginals switch 80% to the SNP.

    However it looks as if only 26% (instead of 32%) of the 2010 Lab switch to the SNP.

    Though it is a small change it makes a big difference.

    My Scottish scenario now looks like this:

    Con 1
    Lab 11
    LD 3
    SNP 44

    Who is your third LD ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    alex. said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
    Wandsworth is "rock solid" Tory because of the local council and low council tax, not necessarily because of demographics, although obviously the demographics are constantly moving against Labour. It still has a fairly significant minority Labour representation, it's hardly a Tory shire.

    Wandsworth is so "rock solid" Tory that one of its MP is Sadiq Khan. In 2010, the Tories could not sum up enough swing votes to take that seat. This time his majority will be 6000+
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
    I've lived in this constituency ever since Glenda was elected and she has been largely invisible. To be fair she answers her correspondence and I am probably not her target audience. But I'm sceptical of the personal vote meme. I don't like the Labour candidate much - she's not sound on the issues I care about.

    I was canvassed on Saturday by the Tory candidate: he was very clued up about tactical voting options and came across as very nice and was even complimentary about the Lib Dem candidate, Maajid Nawaz.

    The mansion tax - if levied on houses worth, say, £1 mio or more (or even lower) - would be a huge issue - but not I think at the £2 mio level. Some may change their vote but not enough to make a difference. And the corollary is that there are a lot of people - myself included - who worry about where their children will live and how the hell they will be able to afford it - an issue to which no party seems to have a sensible answer.

    I don't think you are representative of the constituency, at least not the part of it that Glenda was targeting.

    I hope the Tory can defy expectations and win the seat, but unless there is a slip from Labour about lowering the mansion tax threshold that the Tories can seize on then I'm not sure it is on the cards.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
    You probably live in Shropshire. I would suggest your knowledge of London needs a bit updating.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    surbiton said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
    You probably live in Shropshire. I would suggest your knowledge of London needs a bit updating.
    Why, what has he said that is incorrect?
  • Jeez

    Gareth Bale... sob...

    Perhaps he could end up at Spurs yet ....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32133185

    San Antonio Spurs.
  • I'm greatly enjoying Dan H and his daily who won today award.

    Surprising start with it now being C 2, L 0, LD 0, Other 0

    The big question is just how high will C go... I'll say 28, L 8, LD 1, Other 1

    Dan Hodges writing the same column every time? Has this ever happened before?
    Can you improve on perfection?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    A leaflet from my local Labour PPC arrived today. Not a single mention of Ed Miliband anywhere.

    None.

    Why is his party so ashamed to talk about him?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
    I've lived in this constituency ever since Glenda was elected and she has been largely invisible. To be fair she answers her correspondence and I am probably not her target audience. But I'm sceptical of the personal vote meme. I don't like the Labour candidate much - she's not sound on the issues I care about.

    I was canvassed on Saturday by the Tory candidate: he was very clued up about tactical voting options and came across as very nice and was even complimentary about the Lib Dem candidate, Maajid Nawaz.

    The mansion tax - if levied on houses worth, say, £1 mio or more (or even lower) - would be a huge issue - but not I think at the £2 mio level. Some may change their vote but not enough to make a difference. And the corollary is that there are a lot of people - myself included - who worry about where their children will live and how the hell they will be able to afford it - an issue to which no party seems to have a sensible answer.

    I don't think you are representative of the constituency, at least not the part of it that Glenda was targeting.

    I hope the Tory can defy expectations and win the seat, but unless there is a slip from Labour about lowering the mansion tax threshold that the Tories can seize on then I'm not sure it is on the cards.
    I suspect a lot of people will worry that, if a mansion tax is brought in, the threshold at which it is levied will very rapidly be reduced. I certainly think that highly likely, regardless of what Labour says now.

    But the main reason I think Labour will win is the collapse in the LD vote in the constituency, as evidenced by the results in the local elections where our very strongly LD ward lost all but 1 of its councillors. Indeed, we now have the only LD councillor in Camden. Labour will likely win by default, though they have - as far as I can tell - been the laziest in terms of canvassing.

  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Some parts are. And some aren't. Labour are highly likely to win again - and with a much larger majority than last time (when Glenda scraped in with just 42 votes to spare). But even if the Labour vote increases significantly, it will make no difference to Labour's seats total, an example of what the thread header is talking about, I think.

    I think Glenda Jackson has a very large personal vote, I'm not sure the new Labour candidate will fare as well as you think. Labour will still win, but the swing won't be anything like what they get over the rest of London.
    I'm not convinced, the mansion tax will have a huge effect in Hampstead.
    The mansion tax will have virtually zero effect anywhere
    Really? Wouldn't take many in Hampstead to come to their senses.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    Battersea is a borough of rich and poor ghettos, the haves and have nots, with little in between.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    surbiton said:

    alex. said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
    Wandsworth is "rock solid" Tory because of the local council and low council tax, not necessarily because of demographics, although obviously the demographics are constantly moving against Labour. It still has a fairly significant minority Labour representation, it's hardly a Tory shire.

    Wandsworth is so "rock solid" Tory that one of its MP is Sadiq Khan. In 2010, the Tories could not sum up enough swing votes to take that seat. This time his majority will be 6000+
    That is the Tooting constituency which is now marginal having been rock solid Labour for many years. It is quite different from Battersea which is unlikely to go red this time.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    Battersea is a borough of rich and poor ghettos, the haves and have nots, with little in between.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    A leaflet from my local Labour PPC arrived today. Not a single mention of Ed Miliband anywhere.

    None.

    Why is his party so ashamed to talk about him?

    Ask Nick, his leaflets are the same.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    surbiton said:

    Danny565 said:

    If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy

    I know nothing about Battersea, but isn't Hampstead & Kilburn also super-wealthy? And Labour had a lead in excess of 10% when Ashcroft polled it.
    Yes but Battersea is in Wandsworth a rock solid Tory council. Demographically its probably one of the most tory leaning seats in London. If Battersea ever went labour then they would have a majority in the country of about 300!!!! As for Hampstead and Kilburn watch out for the mansion tax effect when is't really pushed to the fore. I recond its closer there than the ashcroft polls suggest
    You probably live in Shropshire. I would suggest your knowledge of London needs a bit updating.
    You are quite wrong - Wandsworth council is solidly Tory and has been for over 20 years I believe.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    I have to say that here in Wales there's much interest in whether Leanne Wood will use Thursday's debate to make a big song and dance about preserving the Welsh language. It is after all Plaid's signature policy, I can't believe she'd want to waste the opportunity of a national debate to mention it.
This discussion has been closed.