I don't know that I buy that the Conservatives have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party - isn't the Scottish Tory vote the only unionist vote that is holding up pretty well? (due to starting from a lower base). While they probably should vote tactically for Labour, it's not really campaigning for the SNP if they don't do that.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
I wonder how Tebbit would rate Miligeek in the Real Man stakes..
Cameron-esque.
"He said Cameron, like Ed Miliband, did not have enough experience outside politics. Men like Churchill, Atlee, Bevan, were real men with real depths of experience.
They had not gone from school to university to being a special adviser to working in an advertising agency - they had some experience of life - or Mrs Thatcher who was a scientist and worked as a scientist in industry.
He doesn’t have that hinterland of experience any more than Mr Miliband. These days there are too many people in Parliament without adequate experience of life as it is lived by most people in the country.
He said Cameron’s mind was “a foreign country” to him."
But...but........ What about the 1000 nurses in the English NHS on day 1 or the 10000 was it in Scotland or .....oh you loose track quite easily given the amount of time this has been spent
Not to worry they can always use the bankers bonus tax....
Oh? I think I detect a slight fiscal flaw here.
1000 nurses? Wowsers. Let's remind ourselves that equates to maybe an extra 2 per hospital, or possibly 1 for every 8 GP practices. It's not going to make any noticeable difference.
It's not going to make any difference at all in England since it's all going to be spent on nurses in Scotland.
But...but........ What about the 1000 nurses in the English NHS on day 1 or the 10000 was it in Scotland or .....oh you loose track quite easily given the amount of time this has been spent
Not to worry they can always use the bankers bonus tax....
Oh? I think I detect a slight fiscal flaw here.
1000 nurses? Wowsers. Let's remind ourselves that equates to maybe an extra 2 per hospital, or possibly 1 for every 8 GP practices. It's not going to make any noticeable difference.
It's not going to make any difference at all in England since it's all going to be spent on nurses in Scotland.
That was a different story - I seem to remember 15000 nurses for the UK (on which 1000 for Scotland would be short-changing). This thousand today is just the first instalment. I think. But it's confusing, especially when Mr Brown writes to me todau to promise 1000 nurses for Scotland.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
There were reports, that he denied, that he had consulted lawyers re whether he could stay SLAB leader if he gets turfed out of Westminster.
Is the rule that' you can only be elected leader if you are a member', or 'you can only be a leader if you are a member'?
The former - MSP or MP - seems to be clear. The unclear bit is the second version you give ...
The newspaper which outed this was the Sunday Herald last Sunday, I believe.
Does anyone have the actual wording used in the constitution?
The latter is quite clear. He'd have to be a member of one of the qualifying places in order to be leader. If he isn't, he is no longer able to be leader. I wonder what the punishment for breaking the rule is?
Part of the problem is that nobody seems to have a copy (as far as I know) - presumably not least because there is no such organization as Scottish Labour that could have a constitution. Just the local members of Labour.
The Labour rule book is not very helpful ...
"7. Election of the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party A. The Leader of the Scottish Labour Party shall be elected according to the procedural rules set out by the Scottish Executive Committee."
In any case, if it is merely a procedural/administrative issue, Mr M can easily change the rules, should he so wish [edit: subject to committee agreement]. That seems to be what happened when suddenly SLAB no longer published the actual numbers voting in the election which saw Mr Murphy appointed.
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat. It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
A number of us thought the probability was more like 95% some months ago, and posted our thoughts on here.
Nothing in the interim has caused me to think that was a poor assessment and I would now put the probability at 98%. You'd need a pretty big betting bank to make meaningful amounts at the current short odds, but if you have the cash I wouldn't discourage you. They are still generous.
Definitely agree it's still value to back atm, and I share your assessment that it's at least 98% probability we get a no overall majority outcome from here. The kinds of events it would take to shift the polls and election at this point are probably priced higher than 500/1 individually.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
Once again it should be pointed about that many of here thought electing the political heavyweight Murphy was masterstroke that would revive SLab fortunes as he used his Westminster savvy and experience to batter the the regional nobody Sturgeon who lacked big stage experience.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
But...but........ What about the 1000 nurses in the English NHS on day 1 or the 10000 was it in Scotland or .....oh you loose track quite easily given the amount of time this has been spent
Not to worry they can always use the bankers bonus tax....
Oh? I think I detect a slight fiscal flaw here.
1000 nurses? Wowsers. Let's remind ourselves that equates to maybe an extra 2 per hospital, or possibly 1 for every 8 GP practices. It's not going to make any noticeable difference.
It's not going to make any difference at all in England since it's all going to be spent on nurses in Scotland.
That was a different story - I seem to remember 15000 nurses for the UK (on which 1000 for Scotland would be short-changing). This thousand today is just the first instalment. I think. But it's confusing, especially when Mr Brown writes to me todau to promise 1000 nurses for Scotland.
I wish politicians would stop making silly promises as part of their electoral willy-waving and just make sure the service works effectively.
I'm waiting for an urgent hospital appointment - 3 weeks so far - despite the GP sounding, when he saw me, quite alarmed. I imagine that things slow down over Easter and as I'm still functioning am just being patient. But at what point do I go "Sod it. That's what my employer's health insurance is for?"
I have been a user of the NHS for years now - my medical record is quite alarmingly large and varied - so I don't want it to fall apart but having used it under various governments I've become quite immune to hysterical shroud-waving from any party. I really dislike the way Labour have tried to appropriate the NHS rather than simply try and get the best improvements for us for the money we spend. Not least because the most harm that has been done to my family by the NHS (a junior doctor strike) was when Labour were in charge.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
Once again it should be pointed about that many of here thought electing the political heavyweight Murphy was masterstroke that would revive SLab fortunes as he used his Westminster savvy and experience to batter the the regional nobody Sturgeon who lacked big stage experience.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
Is there anyone in the SLAB ranks who could do well do you think? Kezia Dugdale seemed fairly impressive when I saw her on Question Time once.
Is the rule that' you can only be elected leader if you are a member', or 'you can only be a leader if you are a member'?
The former - MSP or MP - seems to be clear. The unclear bit is the second version you give ...
The newspaper which outed this was the Sunday Herald last Sunday, I believe.
Does anyone have the actual wording used in the constitution?
The latter is quite clear. He'd have to be a member of one of the qualifying places in order to be leader. If he isn't, he is no longer able to be leader. I wonder what the punishment for breaking the rule is?
Part of the problem is that nobody seems to have a copy (as far as I know) - presumably not least because there is no such organization as Scottish Labour that could have a constitution. Just the local members of Labour.
The Labour rule book is not very helpful ...
"7. Election of the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party A. The Leader of the Scottish Labour Party shall be elected according to the procedural rules set out by the Scottish Executive Committee."
In any case, if it is merely a procedural/administrative issue, Mr M can easily change the rules, should he so wish [edit: subject to committee agreement]. That seems to be what happened when suddenly SLAB no longer published the actual numbers voting in the election which saw Mr Murphy appointed.
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat. It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
But...but........ What about the 1000 nurses in the English NHS on day 1 or the 10000 was it in Scotland or .....oh you loose track quite easily given the amount of time this has been spent
Not to worry they can always use the bankers bonus tax....
Oh? I think I detect a slight fiscal flaw here.
1000 nurses? Wowsers. Let's remind ourselves that equates to maybe an extra 2 per hospital, or possibly 1 for every 8 GP practices. It's not going to make any noticeable difference.
It's not going to make any difference at all in England since it's all going to be spent on nurses in Scotland.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
Once again it should be pointed about that many of here thought electing the political heavyweight Murphy was masterstroke that would revive SLab fortunes as he used his Westminster savvy and experience to batter the the regional nobody Sturgeon who lacked big stage experience.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
I think I'm the exception that proves the above rule.
When you are fighting a local party on local issues you need a local man who fits with the local profile and has experience in local issues. Murphy is neither an inner city lefty man nor an MSP to be able to fight the SNP in the local community.
Is the rule that' you can only be elected leader if you are a member', or 'you can only be a leader if you are a member'?
The former - MSP or MP - seems to be clear. The unclear bit is the second version you give ...
The newspaper which outed this was the Sunday Herald last Sunday, I believe.
Does anyone have the actual wording used in the constitution?
The latter is quite clear. He'd have to be a member of one of the qualifying places in order to be leader. If he isn't, he is no longer able to be leader. I wonder what the punishment for breaking the rule is?
Part of the problem is that nobody seems to have a copy (as far as I know) - presumably not least because there is no such organization as Scottish Labour that could have a constitution. Just the local members of Labour.
The Labour rule book is not very helpful ...
"7. Election of the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party A. The Leader of the Scottish Labour Party shall be elected according to the procedural rules set out by the Scottish Executive Committee."
In any case, if it is merely a procedural/administrative issue, Mr M can easily change the rules, should he so wish [edit: subject to committee agreement]. That seems to be what happened when suddenly SLAB no longer published the actual numbers voting in the election which saw Mr Murphy appointed.
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat. It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
I think Jim Murphy will recognize the words "politically untenable" if he ever tries it. The remains of SLAB would revolt and split in a thousand directions rather that be led by that man who not only lead them to catastrophe but even lost his own seat.
Also interesting: for all the gains the SNP have made, they've lost 8% of their 2010 vote to the Tories.
I don't think voters for SNP in this election are voting for independence. Many are Labour supporters voting SNP to have more influence on Labour than actually voting Labour.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
Once again it should be pointed about that many of here thought electing the political heavyweight Murphy was masterstroke that would revive SLab fortunes as he used his Westminster savvy and experience to batter the the regional nobody Sturgeon who lacked big stage experience.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
Is there anyone in the SLAB ranks who could do well do you think? Kezia Dugdale seemed fairly impressive when I saw her on Question Time once.
I might wear it but I have always said that the one who fits the profile of a SLAB leader is James Kelly MSP, because he is a local inner city lefty from Glasgow with experience in local issues, and he is an MSP so he has plenty of experience fighting the SNP.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
The best London-wide poll shows a 6% swing to Labour. Combined with a 3% swing outside London, I make that 41 Labour gains.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
I was referring to the Ashcroft constituency polls.
I have counted the seats up. A simple sum of all (most recent) Ashcroft constituency polls of Labour gains gives 45, excluding the ties. If you want to give the ties to Labour, that's 49 gains.
But the constituency polls are probably only accurate to only +/- 5%. They are also snapshots, not forecasts. They also don't prompt for candidates. They have overstated Labour in the past too - see the by-election polling.
The overall marginals polling picture showed a smaller average swing to the Conservatives in the key marginals in April than was previously the case. And they will change again before polling day, probably with UKIP being squeezed further.
So I expect 40 gains is at the top end of Labour expectations.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
Once again it should be pointed about that many of here thought electing the political heavyweight Murphy was masterstroke that would revive SLab fortunes as he used his Westminster savvy and experience to batter the the regional nobody Sturgeon who lacked big stage experience.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
Is there anyone in the SLAB ranks who could do well do you think? Kezia Dugdale seemed fairly impressive when I saw her on Question Time once.
As soon as THE VOW was out there Labour were screwed for this election and likely as much 2016 as well so there was no-one they could have picked that would have helped them.
However picking the person that personified the "calling Yes voters delusional, racist and Nazis" strategy was a particularly perverse brand of self destruction by SLab. They thought that the SNP were going to go back in their box and even in the face of the SNP membership surge thought it was going to happen.
Pretty much any post referendum article by John McTernan - Murphy's close friend and advisor - is a spectacular misreading of the situation and exercise in self delusion.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
But there are others that are more marginal that the Conservatives look set to hold easily.
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
I was referring to the Ashcroft constituency polls.
I have counted the seats up. A simple sum of all (most recent) Ashcroft constituency polls of Labour gains gives 45, excluding the ties. If you want to give the ties to Labour, that's 49 gains.
But the constituency polls are probably only accurate to only +/- 5%. They are also snapshots, not forecasts. They also don't prompt for candidates. They have overstated Labour in the past too - see the by-election polling.
The overall marginals polling picture showed a smaller average swing to the Conservatives in the key marginals in April than was previously the case. And they will change again before polling day, probably with UKIP being squeezed further.
So I expect 40 gains is at the top end of Labour expectations.
I am using the 20 most fresh LordA Tory constituency polls in E&W, those show a swing of 3% in E&W excluding London in Tory seats and a 6.5% swing in London, that would equal 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
In the interests of balance, I will say that the current number of Labour gains I expect direct from the Conservatives is around about 30 +/- 5 seats.
A couple of pointers for the site owner, party 1 should be yellow not blue (we don't want to confuse the numpties) and there's too much content for the tactical voter looking for guidance.
FPT: Mr. Jessop, pre-twentieth century? What era are we talking? Ancient Greek? Republican Rome?
I know this is literally space-age to someone of your historical slant, but mainly industrial and engineering history 1800-1900, and especially the end of the canal era and the beginning of the railways. The era of the greats, including my namesake and his father.
(My namesake was actually responsible for the Cromford and High Peak Railway, which was a railway built on canal principles, nicely linking the two).
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
I was referring to the Ashcroft constituency polls.
I have counted the seats up. A simple sum of all (most recent) Ashcroft constituency polls of Labour gains gives 45, excluding the ties. If you want to give the ties to Labour, that's 49 gains.
But the constituency polls are probably only accurate to only +/- 5%. They are also snapshots, not forecasts. They also don't prompt for candidates. They have overstated Labour in the past too - see the by-election polling.
The overall marginals polling picture showed a smaller average swing to the Conservatives in the key marginals in April than was previously the case. And they will change again before polling day, probably with UKIP being squeezed further.
So I expect 40 gains is at the top end of Labour expectations.
I am using the 20 most fresh LordA Tory constituency polls in E&W, those show a swing of 3% in E&W excluding London in Tory seats and a 6.5% swing in London, that would equal 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
I don't think you're using the right data. If you remain unconvinced, and I see Sean Fear has just computed the numbers that give a similar result to mine, then we shall have to agree to disagree.
I don't suppose there is enough time between now and the election to have a re-run on the same day? Something to look forward to in the barren months post election.
But there are others that are more marginal that the Conservatives look set to hold easily.
Sure, but if (IF!) they actually do take #90 target Finchley, they can afford to miss up to half of the gains before that and still rack up 40 gains from the Tories. As I say, I think it's unlikely, but you can atleast make the case for it on the basis of polling.
I think I received the most negative piece of election literature ever. No mention of local candidates. Absolutely no mention of policies. Simply "SNP puts Miliband in Downing Street. Beverley your vote can stop this
Must be some private polling evidence to suggest that posting one of these to every voter in a labour held marginal would be money well spent.
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
In 2010, the Cons got 37.5% and Lab 30.1%. Unless Cons get a 7%+ lead, they will lose some seats to Lab.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
A couple of pointers for the site owner, party 1 should be yellow not blue (we don't want to confuse the numpties) and there's too much content for the tactical voter looking for guidance.
The Lib Dems will be thrilled to see that guide about in Argyll and Bute and Berwickshire Roxburgh !
A couple of pointers for the site owner, party 1 should be yellow not blue (we don't want to confuse the numpties) and there's too much content for the tactical voter looking for guidance.
Yeah, quite a poor site. You should be able to enter your post code and see what the state is in your constituency, rather than having to scroll through an absurdly boring PDF.
I think I received the most negative piece of election literature ever. No mention of local candidates. Absolutely no mention of policies. Simply "SNP puts Miliband in Downing Street. Beverley your vote can stop this
Must be some private polling evidence to suggest that posting one of these to every voter in a labour held marginal would be money well spent.
But...but........ What about the 1000 nurses in the English NHS on day 1 or the 10000 was it in Scotland or .....oh you loose track quite easily given the amount of time this has been spent
Not to worry they can always use the bankers bonus tax....
Oh? I think I detect a slight fiscal flaw here.
1000 nurses? Wowsers. Let's remind ourselves that equates to maybe an extra 2 per hospital, or possibly 1 for every 8 GP practices. It's not going to make any noticeable difference.
It's not going to make any difference at all in England since it's all going to be spent on nurses in Scotland.
Disinguuous post Ms Cyclefree
Why? The Labour canvasser to whom I said this didn't disagree. He looked rather pained, in fact.
I have no idea what the mansion tax is going to be spent on. It's not enough to fill the amount needed by the NHS ($8 billion) and the Scots - whether Murphy or Sturgeon - seem to be saying that it will be spent on Scotland. At one point it was going to be used by Labour to reintroduce the 10p tax rate.
If anyone is being disingenuous it's Labour, I'm afraid.
Incidentally, Labour have been very strong on canvassing in my area - unlike previous years and, also unlike previous years, their canvassers have been very polite and engaged and quite charming. A delightful transvestite canvassed me on Saturday. The Lib Dems who are usually extraordinarily active have been virtually non-existent.
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat. It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
From memory Ruth Davidson got a massive 12,000 votes to secure her list seat, I do wonder sometimes what the list MSPs actually do given that each constituency already has it's own MSP.
The problem the "mainstream parties" are going to have in Holyrood 2016 is that on current polling they would lose virtually all of their constituency seats and be left fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. Indeed in some areas if the SNP can get its regional list vote above 55% they will also squeeze the mainstream parties hopes for regional seats. This is down to the system designed to ensure the SNP could never get a majority !!
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
I was referring to the Ashcroft constituency polls.
I have counted the seats up. A simple sum of all (most recent) Ashcroft constituency polls of Labour gains gives 45, excluding the ties. If you want to give the ties to Labour, that's 49 gains.
But the constituency polls are probably only accurate to only +/- 5%. They are also snapshots, not forecasts. They also don't prompt for candidates. They have overstated Labour in the past too - see the by-election polling.
The overall marginals polling picture showed a smaller average swing to the Conservatives in the key marginals in April than was previously the case. And they will change again before polling day, probably with UKIP being squeezed further.
So I expect 40 gains is at the top end of Labour expectations.
You might be right - but same conclusion. Miliband is next PM.
In 2010, the Cons got 37.5% and Lab 30.1%. Unless Cons get a 7%+ lead, they will lose some seats to Lab.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
Don't have my spreadsheet on me but a 5-6% Tory lead (as opposed to 7.4%) would probably not result in too many losses to Lab at all - perhaps a couple in London and one or two to hyperlocal factors (e.g. MP standing down). There might even be the odd gain (e.g. Itchen, D&G). Together with a LD performance towards the low end of expectations that would be enough to put the Tories on 310-320.
Obviously we don't currently have a Con lead of that magnitude, though we might be close if the phone pollsters are correct. But with a couple of weeks to go, and UKIP still in the low-to-mid teens, I am happy to be overweight Con Maj @ 11, in contrast to many of the shrewdies on here.
There is also of course the complete polling f***-up scenario - though I think that may be more of an equal opportunity for Con & Lab.
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
In 2010, the Cons got 37.5% and Lab 30.1%. Unless Cons get a 7%+ lead, they will lose some seats to Lab.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
You've been drinking too much from the Smithson (senior) cup. That assumes the same vote distribution and campaigning emphasis as last time, and no first time incumbency bonus.
The Conservatives can write off their top 15 most marginal seats to Labour. The rest (in effect between 15-40) are in play. I suspect we're in the 30 losses bracket at the moment.
If they had a national 7%+ lead this time over Labour, they'd have an overall majority.
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
Apologies for being pedantic, especially so as I know how easy it is to make mistakes when typing out long lists but:
You've only name 5 London Con losses - though I expect them to lose at least one of Harrow E, Enfield Southgate, Finchley and Ilford N.
You've only named 7 NW losses and Lancaster and Fleetwood are in the same constituency. Although in NW region there is also Carlisle, Blackpool N, Pendle and Weaver Vale at heavy risk for the Conservatives.
There is also Wales - Cardiff N is perhaps the only likely Labour gain there.
Other notable Conservative holds by your list include Gloucester, Northampton S, Norwich N, Dudley S and Halesowen.
I don't suppose there is enough time between now and the election to have a re-run on the same day? Something to look forward to in the barren months post election.
If you have time, it's worth reading on that blog the devastating cross examination of Baroness Uddin, who was found to have fiddled her House of Lords expenses and been less than truthful. That we have such people in the legislature is most depressing.
Now Jim Murphy is wading in to give the SNP yet more airtime. He said:
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Murphy and SLAB are in self destruct mode. I thought you could be sectioned to prevent harm to yourself and others but I guess I must have been wrong.
Murphy sounds more and more deranged every day, they have no clue what to do.
He should be updating his CV.
Once again it should be pointed about that many of here thought electing the political heavyweight Murphy was masterstroke that would revive SLab fortunes as he used his Westminster savvy and experience to batter the the regional nobody Sturgeon who lacked big stage experience.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
This is one of those occasions when I'm glad I kept a record of my thoughts:
"Scottish Labour have avoided the worst outcomes from their leadership contest. In Jim Murphy they have by far the most competent of the three leadership candidates available and he won by a sufficiently wide margin to silence his party opponents. Neither of these outcomes was preordained. A complete Scottish Labour meltdown looks markedly less likely as a result."
"by electing Jim Murphy as leader of Scottish Labour, Labour has chosen a leader who was one of the main faces of unionism during the referendum campaign. Merely by being who he is, it is going to be hard for Jim Murphy to move the topic of conversation."
"We now know how both Labour and the SNP are going to be led into the general election in May. Political discourse is dominated by the question of Scotland's place in the UK and there is no sign that is going to change. Jim Murphy has a Herculean job ahead of him to change that, and while he's capable, there's only so much that one man can do. We can expect him to steady the ship, but he is not well-placed to appeal to the voters who have left Labour for the SNP."
I don't suppose there is enough time between now and the election to have a re-run on the same day? Something to look forward to in the barren months post election.
If you have time, it's worth reading on that blog the devastating cross examination of Baroness Uddin, who was found to have fiddled her House of Lords expenses and been less than truthful. That we have such people in the legislature is most depressing.
Was that directed at me, or did you mis-click the quote button?
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East Brent Central Manchester, Withington Norwich South Redcar Burnley Cardiff Central Hornsey and Wood Green Leeds North West Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central) 8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South) 3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich) 2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley) 3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton) 2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud) 2 SE (Hastings, Hove) 6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
Apologies for being pedantic, especially so as I know how easy it is to make mistakes when typing out long lists but:
You've only name 5 London Con losses - though I expect them to lose at least one of Harrow E, Enfield Southgate, Finchley and Ilford N.
You've only named 7 NW losses and Lancaster and Fleetwood are in the same constituency. Although in NW region there is also Carlisle, Blackpool N, Pendle and Weaver Vale at heavy risk for the Conservatives.
There is also Wales - Cardiff N is perhaps the only likely Labour gain there.
Other notable Conservative holds by your list include Gloucester, Northampton S, Norwich N, Dudley S and Halesowen.
Apols,
Finchley is the other London loss and Carlisle, Weaver Vale are highly likely to go.
What do the well informed pb denizens reckon Lab and the tories have kept up their sleeves for the last 2 weeks - anything?
Needs to be this week or early next to get traction I would have thought.
Any rabbits lurking in hats?
I keep expecting Labour to ditch HS2 - but maybe that's something that will happen if they get in, I'm not sure how it would be viewed if they ditched it now.
I don't suppose there is enough time between now and the election to have a re-run on the same day? Something to look forward to in the barren months post election.
If you have time, it's worth reading on that blog the devastating cross examination of Baroness Uddin, who was found to have fiddled her House of Lords expenses and been less than truthful. That we have such people in the legislature is most depressing.
Was that directed at me, or did you mis-click the quote button?
Yes - it was. I was responding to your response to my post.
(Edited): the blog by TedJeory follows the court proceedings in more detail.
What do the well informed pb denizens reckon Lab and the tories have kept up their sleeves for the last 2 weeks - anything?
Needs to be this week or early next to get traction I would have thought.
Any rabbits lurking in hats?
I keep expecting Labour to ditch HS2 - but maybe that's something that will happen if they get in, I'm not sure how it would be viewed if they ditched it now.
Would be a rare sensible policy. £50bn+ for a railway to Birmingham, one of which we already have... baffling
Just looking at the video of the Japanese MagLev train. I know there are all sorts of good reasons why not, but I'd much prefer HS2 to be exploring new technology like that. Even better would be the evacuated tube ideas of RM Salter. (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P4874.pdf)
I know the enthusiasm for madcap ideas went out in the 70s, but for something so fundamental as trains I'd be happy to see a substantial national spend if it was a real game-changing idea.
I don't suppose there is enough time between now and the election to have a re-run on the same day? Something to look forward to in the barren months post election.
If you have time, it's worth reading on that blog the devastating cross examination of Baroness Uddin, who was found to have fiddled her House of Lords expenses and been less than truthful. That we have such people in the legislature is most depressing.
Was that directed at me, or did you mis-click the quote button?
Yes - it was. I was responding to your response to my post.
OK, it was just a bit of a subject change, is all!
What do the well informed pb denizens reckon Lab and the tories have kept up their sleeves for the last 2 weeks - anything?
Needs to be this week or early next to get traction I would have thought.
Any rabbits lurking in hats?
I keep expecting Labour to ditch HS2 - but maybe that's something that will happen if they get in, I'm not sure how it would be viewed if they ditched it now.
Would be a rare sensible policy. £50bn+ for a railway to Birmingham, one of which we already have... baffling
Going by the ORCATS system that allocated funding to operators between London and Birmingham I believe we actually have four routes with six operators:
WCML - Virgin West Coast/London Midland Chiltern GWML - FGW/Cross Country MML - EMT/Cross Country
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
In 2010, the Cons got 37.5% and Lab 30.1%. Unless Cons get a 7%+ lead, they will lose some seats to Lab.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
You've been drinking too much from the Smithson (senior) cup. That assumes the same vote distribution and campaigning emphasis as last time, and no first time incumbency bonus.
The Conservatives can write off their top 15 most marginal seats to Labour. The rest (in effect between 15-40) are in play. I suspect we're in the 30 losses bracket at the moment.
If they had a national 7%+ lead this time over Labour, they'd have an overall majority.
You seem desperate to dish any bad news for the blues and magnify any good.
My analysis (using Ashcroft polls where available)
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267 LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28 Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274 SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57 Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Actually that is from the LordA's constituency polls, the fresh ones actually. A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
The best London-wide poll shows a 6% swing to Labour. Combined with a 3% swing outside London, I make that 41 Labour gains.
Even a 6% swing to Labour in London wont be a ULS (universal London swing).
With the socioeconomic extremes which London has as a whole plus the rapid demographic change in various parts of the city there's likely to be large variances of swing across London - as there often has been historically.
But there are others that are more marginal that the Conservatives look set to hold easily.
Sure, but if (IF!) they actually do take #90 target Finchley, they can afford to miss up to half of the gains before that and still rack up 40 gains from the Tories. As I say, I think it's unlikely, but you can atleast make the case for it on the basis of polling.
On current polling I'd expect Labour to win c.40 from Conservatives, and the Conservatives to win c.15 from Lib Dems. That would probably leave the Conservatives as the largest party, but in no position to form a government.
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat. It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
From memory Ruth Davidson got a massive 12,000 votes to secure her list seat, I do wonder sometimes what the list MSPs actually do given that each constituency already has it's own MSP.
The problem the "mainstream parties" are going to have in Holyrood 2016 is that on current polling they would lose virtually all of their constituency seats and be left fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. Indeed in some areas if the SNP can get its regional list vote above 55% they will also squeeze the mainstream parties hopes for regional seats. This is down to the system designed to ensure the SNP could never get a majority !!
There will be something like 100 Labour hacks trying to get one of the 13 likely List Seats that SLAB can expect to get in 2016. If you are one of the 99 who aren't called Jim Murphy, removing a main rival from your path to staying at the Trough is a very good incentive.
Basically, after Murphy is given his jotters by the voters of East Ren he is toast.
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
In 2010, the Cons got 37.5% and Lab 30.1%. Unless Cons get a 7%+ lead, they will lose some seats to Lab.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
You've been drinking too much from the Smithson (senior) cup. That assumes the same vote distribution and campaigning emphasis as last time, and no first time incumbency bonus.
The Conservatives can write off their top 15 most marginal seats to Labour. The rest (in effect between 15-40) are in play. I suspect we're in the 30 losses bracket at the moment.
If they had a national 7%+ lead this time over Labour, they'd have an overall majority.
You seem desperate to dish any bad news for the blues and magnify any good.
Perhaps I'm going against the grain here but I don't buy the whole 'tick tock' thing with the polls. The campaign might be wretched but the polls are providing us with just enough volatility to keep interest up.
One quote - "Many Muslim public voices are not very liberal, simply because democracy does not favour minority liberalism. Political parties tend to go where the votes are, and in ethnic politics the ‘community leaders’ who can deliver those x’s are, almost by definition, the most reactionary and opposed to integration (since that would mean a loss of power). These ‘community leaders’ are treated like they’re king of the Muslims because they can deliver votes and, if they’re upset about something (like some silly cartoon), they can muster large numbers of protesters; reforming, liberal Muslim politicians can do no such thing.
A liberal Muslim like Nawaz instead has to appeal to the voters as individuals, in the secular tradition, and by being in parliament he would give liberal Islam a much more powerful voice."
A great pity that he is most unlikely to get in, unless there is a huge upset.
The sucking up to "community leaders" is something that worries me hugely about other parties' approach to minority communities, particularly Labour.
Perhaps I'm going against the grain here but I don't buy the whole 'tick tock' thing with the polls. The campaign might be wretched but the polls are providing us with just enough volatility to keep interest up.
Tick tock means time is running out for the Tories to generate real swingback.
Where is the crossover we were promised after Christmas and after Valentine's day and then in the short campaign?
One or two pollsters are posting Tory leads but even then it'd be touch and go.
If it's the daily Yougov, that means something's changed. Given it's the political editor of the Sun tweeting it early, it's unlikely to be a move to Labour.
But wolf has been cried so many times on polls, I'm always cautious now.
I don't think Labour will pick up more than 40 seats from the Conservatives unless they perform very much better than expected on the night.
Actually Labour has to perform as expected by what the polls say now. The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
The polls vary, and do not point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories. Not even Ashcroft.
Although I bow to no-one in my scepticism about Labour, Ashcroft last week had Labour ahead in their target seats #70, #87 and #90.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
With the polling we currently have, and the underlying trends, I don't expect a huge number of Labour gains from the Conservatives. We have several polls still registering Conservative leads.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
In 2010, the Cons got 37.5% and Lab 30.1%. Unless Cons get a 7%+ lead, they will lose some seats to Lab.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
You've been drinking too much from the Smithson (senior) cup. That assumes the same vote distribution and campaigning emphasis as last time, and no first time incumbency bonus.
The Conservatives can write off their top 15 most marginal seats to Labour. The rest (in effect between 15-40) are in play. I suspect we're in the 30 losses bracket at the moment.
If they had a national 7%+ lead this time over Labour, they'd have an overall majority.
You seem desperate to dish any bad news for the blues and magnify any good.
Rubbish, and you know it. Just look at my posts here from only a week ago. I have been heavily critical of Cameron and the campaign, and am not optimistic about the chances of him staying in government. My forecasts are defensible and realistic based upon the data.
If I wanted to be churlish, I could equally say the opposite about you: you take any chance you can to emphasise any positive piece of news for Labour, and downplay the same for the Conservatives
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat. It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
From memory Ruth Davidson got a massive 12,000 votes to secure her list seat, I do wonder sometimes what the list MSPs actually do given that each constituency already has it's own MSP.
The problem the "mainstream parties" are going to have in Holyrood 2016 is that on current polling they would lose virtually all of their constituency seats and be left fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. Indeed in some areas if the SNP can get its regional list vote above 55% they will also squeeze the mainstream parties hopes for regional seats. This is down to the system designed to ensure the SNP could never get a majority !!
I think Murphy is toast whatever. I think it will depend in part on the attitude of BBC Disreporting Scotland and who they might wish to elevate to Saviour status. They will effectively run any leadership campaign to pick SLABs he or she who can walk on water candidate. Cynical but true. Once they have stopped shedding tears at the SLAB wipe out and fulminating at the SNP that is.
If it's the daily Yougov, that means something's changed.
I hope so, in whatever direction, but I don't think we can be certain something's changed. After all, he could argue that a poll showing no change, and thus that the fears of a Lab-SNP power sharing deal is not the game changer some are hoping for, is pretty interesting.
As I say I would hope from his bigging it up that something has changed, but as you say, best to be cautious with YouGov. Probably just a MOE change after several Lab leads.
Comments
Cameron has been the invisible man since the manifesto launch.
The polls right now point to 50 Labour gains from the Tories.
"He said Cameron, like Ed Miliband, did not have enough experience outside politics.
Men like Churchill, Atlee, Bevan, were real men with real depths of experience.
They had not gone from school to university to being a special adviser to working in an advertising agency - they had some experience of life - or Mrs Thatcher who was a scientist and worked as a scientist in industry.
He doesn’t have that hinterland of experience any more than Mr Miliband. These days there are too many people in Parliament without adequate experience of life as it is lived by most people in the country.
He said Cameron’s mind was “a foreign country” to him."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/21/election-2015-live-labour-john-major-blackmail-snp-nicola-sturgeon-ed-miliband#block-55366176e4b0d36479e581e6
It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
Although there's a strong case to be made that the polls are overestimating Labour (which on balance I agree with), it's not totally implausible to think Labour could make a huge amount of gains from the Tories.
A swing of 3% in Tory seats outside London in E&W and 6.5% in London from his constituency polls is precisely 50 Labour gains.
But I'm going to vote UKIP anyway.
And that Nats who thought that assessment was a crock of excrement were running scared.
I'm waiting for an urgent hospital appointment - 3 weeks so far - despite the GP sounding, when he saw me, quite alarmed. I imagine that things slow down over Easter and as I'm still functioning am just being patient. But at what point do I go "Sod it. That's what my employer's health insurance is for?"
I have been a user of the NHS for years now - my medical record is quite alarmingly large and varied - so I don't want it to fall apart but having used it under various governments I've become quite immune to hysterical shroud-waving from any party. I really dislike the way Labour have tried to appropriate the NHS rather than simply try and get the best improvements for us for the money we spend. Not least because the most harm that has been done to my family by the NHS (a junior doctor strike) was when Labour were in charge.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
When you are fighting a local party on local issues you need a local man who fits with the local profile and has experience in local issues.
Murphy is neither an inner city lefty man nor an MSP to be able to fight the SNP in the local community.
YES
SNP - 90%
Labour - 5%
Greens - 2%
Conservatives - 1%
Lib Dems - 1%
NO
Labour - 42%
Conservatives - 30%
SNP - 13%
Lib Dems - 9%
UKIP - 4%
Greens - 1%
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/1yn2exbcsl/TheTimesResults_Scotland_150420_Website.pdf
Also interesting: for all the gains the SNP have made, they've lost 8% of their 2010 vote to the Tories.
Has any celeb actually followed through and left?
The remains of SLAB would revolt and split in a thousand directions rather that be led by that man who not only lead them to catastrophe but even lost his own seat.
I have counted the seats up. A simple sum of all (most recent) Ashcroft constituency polls of Labour gains gives 45, excluding the ties. If you want to give the ties to Labour, that's 49 gains.
But the constituency polls are probably only accurate to only +/- 5%. They are also snapshots, not forecasts. They also don't prompt for candidates. They have overstated Labour in the past too - see the by-election polling.
The overall marginals polling picture showed a smaller average swing to the Conservatives in the key marginals in April than was previously the case. And they will change again before polling day, probably with UKIP being squeezed further.
So I expect 40 gains is at the top end of Labour expectations.
However picking the person that personified the "calling Yes voters delusional, racist and Nazis" strategy was a particularly perverse brand of self destruction by SLab. They thought that the SNP were going to go back in their box and even in the face of the SNP membership surge thought it was going to happen.
Pretty much any post referendum article by John McTernan - Murphy's close friend and advisor - is a spectacular misreading of the situation and exercise in self delusion.
The one place Labour could spring a big surprise is in London.
Not enough for Cameron to stay in power.
http://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/election_2015
A couple of pointers for the site owner, party 1 should be yellow not blue (we don't want to confuse the numpties) and there's too much content for the tactical voter looking for guidance.
(My namesake was actually responsible for the Cromford and High Peak Railway, which was a railway built on canal principles, nicely linking the two).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromford_and_High_Peak_Railway
Must be some private polling evidence to suggest that posting one of these to every voter in a labour held marginal would be money well spent.
Being neck and neck in the polls implies a 3-4% swing to Lab which implies the loss of 40-50 seats. A small Con lead still means losses to Lab.
He must have been a bit worried last year that he might have to honour his promise.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/tories-election-2015-sturgeon-miliband-warning
I have no idea what the mansion tax is going to be spent on. It's not enough to fill the amount needed by the NHS ($8 billion) and the Scots - whether Murphy or Sturgeon - seem to be saying that it will be spent on Scotland. At one point it was going to be used by Labour to reintroduce the 10p tax rate.
If anyone is being disingenuous it's Labour, I'm afraid.
Incidentally, Labour have been very strong on canvassing in my area - unlike previous years and, also unlike previous years, their canvassers have been very polite and engaged and quite charming. A delightful transvestite canvassed me on Saturday. The Lib Dems who are usually extraordinarily active have been virtually non-existent.
I fancy Murphy's chances if he tries to change the rules to stay SLAB leader in the case SLAB not only crashes but Murphy loses his own seat.
It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
From memory Ruth Davidson got a massive 12,000 votes to secure her list seat, I do wonder sometimes what the list MSPs actually do given that each constituency already has it's own MSP.
The problem the "mainstream parties" are going to have in Holyrood 2016 is that on current polling they would lose virtually all of their constituency seats and be left fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. Indeed in some areas if the SNP can get its regional list vote above 55% they will also squeeze the mainstream parties hopes for regional seats. This is down to the system designed to ensure the SNP could never get a majority !!
If correct, he can't have gone far.
Obviously we don't currently have a Con lead of that magnitude, though we might be close if the phone pollsters are correct. But with a couple of weeks to go, and UKIP still in the low-to-mid teens, I am happy to be overweight Con Maj @ 11, in contrast to many of the shrewdies on here.
There is also of course the complete polling f***-up scenario - though I think that may be more of an equal opportunity for Con & Lab.
All but three (edit) of the Ashcroft by-election polls have OVERSTATED CON not understated.
The Conservatives can write off their top 15 most marginal seats to Labour. The rest (in effect between 15-40) are in play. I suspect we're in the 30 losses bracket at the moment.
If they had a national 7%+ lead this time over Labour, they'd have an overall majority.
You've only name 5 London Con losses - though I expect them to lose at least one of Harrow E, Enfield Southgate, Finchley and Ilford N.
You've only named 7 NW losses and Lancaster and Fleetwood are in the same constituency. Although in NW region there is also Carlisle, Blackpool N, Pendle and Weaver Vale at heavy risk for the Conservatives.
There is also Wales - Cardiff N is perhaps the only likely Labour gain there.
Other notable Conservative holds by your list include Gloucester, Northampton S, Norwich N, Dudley S and Halesowen.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-2-labour-vs-snp.html
"Scottish Labour have avoided the worst outcomes from their leadership contest. In Jim Murphy they have by far the most competent of the three leadership candidates available and he won by a sufficiently wide margin to silence his party opponents. Neither of these outcomes was preordained. A complete Scottish Labour meltdown looks markedly less likely as a result."
"by electing Jim Murphy as leader of Scottish Labour, Labour has chosen a leader who was one of the main faces of unionism during the referendum campaign. Merely by being who he is, it is going to be hard for Jim Murphy to move the topic of conversation."
"We now know how both Labour and the SNP are going to be led into the general election in May. Political discourse is dominated by the question of Scotland's place in the UK and there is no sign that is going to change. Jim Murphy has a Herculean job ahead of him to change that, and while he's capable, there's only so much that one man can do. We can expect him to steady the ship, but he is not well-placed to appeal to the voters who have left Labour for the SNP."
I'm content on the whole with that assessment.
What do the well informed pb denizens reckon Lab and the tories have kept up their sleeves for the last 2 weeks - anything?
Needs to be this week or early next to get traction I would have thought.
Any rabbits lurking in hats?
Finchley is the other London loss and Carlisle, Weaver Vale are highly likely to go.
Cardiff North is forecast Labour too.
(Edited): the blog by TedJeory follows the court proceedings in more detail.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals
I know the enthusiasm for madcap ideas went out in the 70s, but for something so fundamental as trains I'd be happy to see a substantial national spend if it was a real game-changing idea.
WCML - Virgin West Coast/London Midland
Chiltern
GWML - FGW/Cross Country
MML - EMT/Cross Country
With the socioeconomic extremes which London has as a whole plus the rapid demographic change in various parts of the city there's likely to be large variances of swing across London - as there often has been historically.
It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
From memory Ruth Davidson got a massive 12,000 votes to secure her list seat, I do wonder sometimes what the list MSPs actually do given that each constituency already has it's own MSP.
The problem the "mainstream parties" are going to have in Holyrood 2016 is that on current polling they would lose virtually all of their constituency seats and be left fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. Indeed in some areas if the SNP can get its regional list vote above 55% they will also squeeze the mainstream parties hopes for regional seats. This is down to the system designed to ensure the SNP could never get a majority !!
There will be something like 100 Labour hacks trying to get one of the 13 likely List Seats that SLAB can expect to get in 2016. If you are one of the 99 who aren't called Jim Murphy, removing a main rival from your path to staying at the Trough is a very good incentive.
Basically, after Murphy is given his jotters by the voters of East Ren he is toast.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/hampstead-liberals-can-use-their-vote-to-fight-radical-islam-and-silence-right-wing-bores/
One quote - "Many Muslim public voices are not very liberal, simply because democracy does not favour minority liberalism. Political parties tend to go where the votes are, and in ethnic politics the ‘community leaders’ who can deliver those x’s are, almost by definition, the most reactionary and opposed to integration (since that would mean a loss of power). These ‘community leaders’ are treated like they’re king of the Muslims because they can deliver votes and, if they’re upset about something (like some silly cartoon), they can muster large numbers of protesters; reforming, liberal Muslim politicians can do no such thing.
A liberal Muslim like Nawaz instead has to appeal to the voters as individuals, in the secular tradition, and by being in parliament he would give liberal Islam a much more powerful voice."
A great pity that he is most unlikely to get in, unless there is a huge upset.
The sucking up to "community leaders" is something that worries me hugely about other parties' approach to minority communities, particularly Labour.
Where is the crossover we were promised after Christmas and after Valentine's day and then in the short campaign?
One or two pollsters are posting Tory leads but even then it'd be touch and go.
I'll say Con 36 Lab 33
But wolf has been cried so many times on polls, I'm always cautious now.
If I wanted to be churlish, I could equally say the opposite about you: you take any chance you can to emphasise any positive piece of news for Labour, and downplay the same for the Conservatives
It would be on par with Clegg trying to hang on the LD leadership in case he loses Sheffield Hallam.
One would think so, but remember that Mr M has one obvious and very substantial incentive. If he can hang on till the 2016 Holyrood election he will have a good chance of a list MSP seat however ill things were going - the Holyrood system is effectively designed to ensure that (though not personally for him, of course). Ruth Davidson has one such seat herself.
Indeed he could stand both as a constituency and as a list MSP I believe, belt and braces.
Of course, if SLAB believe in payment by results, there might be a problem or two with this scenario given the likely situation if Mr M has lost his own seat
From memory Ruth Davidson got a massive 12,000 votes to secure her list seat, I do wonder sometimes what the list MSPs actually do given that each constituency already has it's own MSP.
The problem the "mainstream parties" are going to have in Holyrood 2016 is that on current polling they would lose virtually all of their constituency seats and be left fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. Indeed in some areas if the SNP can get its regional list vote above 55% they will also squeeze the mainstream parties hopes for regional seats. This is down to the system designed to ensure the SNP could never get a majority !!
I think Murphy is toast whatever. I think it will depend in part on the attitude of BBC Disreporting Scotland and who they might wish to elevate to Saviour status. They will effectively run any leadership campaign to pick SLABs he or she who can walk on water candidate. Cynical but true. Once they have stopped shedding tears at the SLAB wipe out and fulminating at the SNP that is.
As I say I would hope from his bigging it up that something has changed, but as you say, best to be cautious with YouGov. Probably just a MOE change after several Lab leads.