There's an interesting graphic in the Observer. In safe Labour or Conservative seats, the swing is c.3% to Labour, similar to national polls.
In Con/Lab marginals, the swing is 1% to the Conservatives. In Con/Lib Dem battles, it's 11% to the Conservatives. Outstanding targeting by the Tories.
My entry in the competition was staggeringly crap but one thing I did get right is that there has been a huge unwind in the bias in the system in favour of Labour. The defeats in Scotland for Labour and the massive improvement in the seat vote ratio for the Tories meant they got a significant winners bonus in 2015 unlike 2010.
Judging by the numbers of voters required to achieve a Tory MP, Lab MP, etc, there is now, potentially, an electoral bias TO the Tories.
And this will be further entrenched by Cameron skewing, sorry, altering the constituency boundaries. Heh.
Indeed. And if EVEL is in force by then getting an anti Tory alliance together that can legislate on English matters is going to be almost impossible.
Almost unnoticed the Tories have had major success in the local elections winning 30 councils and nearly 500 extra councillors. In contrast Labour and especially the Lib Dems lost heavily.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Pulpstar But many taxes, Foreign Affairs and Defence will still be UK wide for which a UK majority will suffice. Labour may not be able to pass much significant domestic reform in England if they have no English majority, but that would not worry the left, they could still raise taxes helped by Welsh and Scottish MPs and determine Foreign Policy
Pity about Dan Jarvis, he would have at least made an interesting addition to the Labour leadership race, now looks like a Cooper v Umunna v Burnham battle again. Hopefully Jarvis will run for the Deputy Leadership
I dont think the tories have too much to worry about from sny of those three... Theyre all known entities
To the wider public though? Cooper and Burnham have seemed oddly invisible to me, Cooper more so than Burnham, and Ummuna has a certain media profile but was only shadow Business Secretary and while known to the Tories in that role, being leader and more visible to more of the public might be a different kettle of fish.
All the old guard in Labour need to step aside, i'll probably take two elections for Labour to regain power and be credible. Ed has done so much damage.. Tom Watson..??? they guy who was taking Xmas presents to Gordon Brown's kids.. jeeez
.
This, there's no-one new and the good old ones were briefed against relentlessly in the Blair/Brown era.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
The risk is, whilst Labour spend ages navel gazing, it allows the Tories to set/frame the agenda and narrative.
tig86 Cameron to lead In, supported by the Labour and LD and SNP leaders, Farage or Carswell Out, supported by Redwood, Hannan, Patterson, Fox and Field
Interesting. I'd have thought that the PM wouldn't want to take the lead in case he lost...but then again Cameron may be more likely to get a win. Should be interesting to watch, though.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
I guess they want to get a new leader as soon as possible to try and stop the Tories controlling the narrative so much. One of the big criticisms of 2010 was how drawn out the leadership contest was.
IOS: Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
kle4Really this election seems to be one of those where people have been fooled by the closeness of the polls into thinking the outcome will actually be really close. As we know, tie on votes is a Labour win, barring any bizarre unforeseen shifts around the place, but the narrative of tieing in the polls with an expectation of shy tory syndrome has led to it being considered a tighter race than in fact it is. Ed faces an awkward aftermath, but that's not the same as it being too close to call.
Haha this is brilliant, I'm sort of feeling sorry for him; he couldn't have been wronger if he tried.
Actually that one was one of mine - but at least my predictions of Labour victory lacked the zeal of a labour supporter and smug attacks on the eventual victors!
Oops, well at least there was a hint of reluctance to proclaim EICIPM (& you stuck around! ). I hope that he comes back, even though he will have to endure some heavy ribbing if he comes back.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Ha. Of course, I will be very disappointed on some things, I'm sure. But it's no use carping on the sidelines. I also think UKIP have been set-back by this result.
Defence is a big issue for me. I now think I can achieve more on influencing that from within the inside of the party.
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
IOS: Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
kle4Really this election seems to be one of those where people have been fooled by the closeness of the polls into thinking the outcome will actually be really close. As we know, tie on votes is a Labour win, barring any bizarre unforeseen shifts around the place, but the narrative of tieing in the polls with an expectation of shy tory syndrome has led to it being considered a tighter race than in fact it is. Ed faces an awkward aftermath, but that's not the same as it being too close to call.
Haha this is brilliant, I'm sort of feeling sorry for him; he couldn't have been wronger if he tried.
Actually that one was one of mine - but at least my predictions of Labour victory lacked the zeal of a labour supporter and smug attacks on the eventual victors!
Oops, well at least there was a hint of reluctance to proclaim EICIPM (& you stuck around! ). I hope that he comes back, even though he will have to endure some heavy ribbing if he comes back.
Probably wise for most intense Labour partisans to allow exuberant Tories to enjoy a week or two in blissful celebratory optimism I suspect. They'll be back.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
IOS: Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Holy mother of... That's before the boundary changes right? So they'd probably need a 15% lead after them. That is never, ever going to happen.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Paul Nurtall now on - it won't just be 2 UKIP seats, I don't buy this exit poll, we'll win more than 2 and Tories won't get more than 300 seats.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Labour are truly in an awful, awful place. And, as you say, that's just on the current boundaries.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories?
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Ha. Of course, I will be very disappointed on some things, I'm sure. But it's no use carping on the sidelines. I also think UKIP have been set-back by this result.
Defence is a big issue for me. I now think I can achieve more on influencing that from within the inside of the party.
parties should always be broad churches, you never get everything but if you get some so be it.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Holy mother of... That's before the boundary changes right? So they'd probably need a 15% lead after them. That is never, ever going to happen.
Before the boundary changes, yes.
They've done so badly in the marginals that many of them have moved away from them to an enormous extent.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
link please
It'll be on iPlayer for a few more days yet.
I think I'll download it , always worth re-hearing it...
Bad news for Labour. ded is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Even including Scotland ?
Yes, just 6 Scottish seats are within an 8% range.
Aberdeen South East Lothian Edinburgh North Edinburgh South West Paisley South Renfrewshire South
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
The risk is, whilst Labour spend ages navel gazing, it allows the Tories to set/frame the agenda and narrative.
It is what happened in 2010
There is zero risk. The narrative that needed to be set in 2010 was Labour crashed the car. It was done successfully. But there is no "anti Labour government narrative" that can be imposed now, they've been out of power for five years.
They should take their time, concentrate on getting the right leader who will appeal to the WWC, the middle class, and, especially, the Scots. There's another Holyrood elex in 2016. One that Labour REALLY need to do well in, or they could lose Scotland forever.
They are foolishly rushing a decision that is vitally important for their longterm survival.
"They should take their time, concentrate on getting the right leader who will appeal to the WWC, the middle class, and, especially, the Scots."
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
could you post the link please
Enjoy - so far it's better than Dimbleby on the box... & 2 / 2 results actually listened to...
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
The risk is, whilst Labour spend ages navel gazing, it allows the Tories to set/frame the agenda and narrative.
It is what happened in 2010
Just get on and appoint Liz Kendall! Now down to 8/1.
Of the other 2010 intake I think Stella Creasy is the only one worth tipping. I think Liz and her are pretty friendly so probably discussed, but just possibly Liz knew Stella would enter so got off the blocks first.
Good stakes still on Stella . I have had a nibble.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Labour are truly in an awful, awful place. And, as you say, that's just on the current boundaries.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories?
The 2020GE is for the Tories to lose, IMHO.
So far as the Lib Dems are concerned, I'm reminded of the scene at the end of the Addams Family:
Pugsley: Are they dead? Wednesday: Does it matter?
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Ha. Of course, I will be very disappointed on some things, I'm sure. But it's no use carping on the sidelines. I also think UKIP have been set-back by this result.
Defence is a big issue for me. I now think I can achieve more on influencing that from within the inside of the party.
parties should always be broad churches, you never get everything but if you get some so be it.
I wish I could convince good people like you and Sean Fear to join me. I don't want to be lonely!
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
I guess they want to get a new leader as soon as possible to try and stop the Tories controlling the narrative so much. One of the big criticisms of 2010 was how drawn out the leadership contest was.
Focus groups? Have they not seen that focus groups are part of the problem, not the solution?
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
I have no idea what happened, and still can't believe it. This whole result feels totally surreal, and statistically and emotionally impossible.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
A google search suggests 520 results for the phrase 'Ed is crap' on PB, and 159 'EICIPM', which seems a little low on both even without variants of the two taken into account
Maybe the amount of threads both appeared in? Multiply that by how many times likely mentioned in both and I'd say we're looking at about 10000+ as a conservative estimate.
I belief that Google only looks at the most recent version of each historic thread and so only sees the last 100 posts from that thread...
(Boring technical stuff only of interest to utter nerds) Its a while since I looked at how they link following bots work but from memory it runs whatever javascript occurs on page load and nothing after. So it allows vanilla to load the final 100 comments in a thread but doesn't attempt to load and index the previous comments any before the final 100...
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
I have no idea what happened, and still can't believe it. This whole result feels totally surreal, and statistically and emotionally impossible.
Still, it has happened. Pinch me.
Since you were one of the very few people to put intellectual effort into working out how it might happen, what hope is there for the rest of us?
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC, LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
I can't help but feel that unless they can win Scotland back, the left (Labour specifically) is screwed.
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
The risk is, whilst Labour spend ages navel gazing, it allows the Tories to set/frame the agenda and narrative.
It is what happened in 2010
The Tories didn't set the narrative, Labour running out of money set the narrative.
A good leader has five years to change or set the narrative.
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
I have no idea what happened, and still can't believe it. This whole result feels totally surreal, and statistically and emotionally impossible.
Still, it has happened. Pinch me.
Since you were one of the very few people to put intellectual effort into working out how it might happen, what hope is there for the rest of us?
You flatter me, and are far too modest about your own exceptional efforts, Sir.
I probably need to reflect on this for several weeks. I just can't digest it right now.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories? .
The SW problem feels particularly acute (although that may just be because that is where I reside). Other areas are essentially no go areas for a long time, so aren't as important in terms of the initial attempts at recovery, but they were strong here in the SW, a place where outside of some specific areas people just have no experience of voting Labour if they are not Tory voters. Now the LDs were forced into 4th place behind UKIP and Lab in many places - if Labour can become the natural second placers to the Tories (even if they have no hope of winning the seats), it prevents the LDs from staging a recovery to fight for their old seats.
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC , LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
In my nightmare situation, the Tory party fatally splits on Europe after Dave makes it a hat-trick of referendum victories.
Getting 1 in 7 current Tory voters might not be that difficult.
Mortimer's forecast is spookily accurate. Just stunning. I'd love to know how he or she computed that brilliant bit of clairvoyance.
There were signs, had we been prepared to read them (I didn't).
The party that leads on best leader/economic competence wins the election. Matt Singh made this clear.
True sean
I think one of the problems for politcal anoraks is we overcomplicate things in our bubble.
Agreed. My wife - who has always been on the side of the winners in general elections - was amazed at my pessimism for the Conservatives in the days leading up to the election. 'People just won't vote Labour with Ed Miliband in charge' she said. (Her list of complaints about him was long, and started with him defeating his brother in the leadership election, closely followed by the fact he was put there by the unions when the party and the MPs wanted his brother, but basically boiled down to a physical revulsion whenever she saw him on the screen. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.)
Her gut instinct was far more reliable than any of my detailed assessments of polls or subsamples or marginals. People simply didn't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
My English babymother was the same. Not very political, vaguely centre Left, highly intelligent, would possibly have benefited from some Labour policies.... Yet she "hated" Miliband (her word) and was convinced he could never win.
Looking back with perfect hindsight it is amazing that Labour elected him. And now, without reflection, they are hastening to choose another leader, just like that. Why? Why the rush? What is the point?
Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country.
"Have primaries. TV debates. Road test the new guys and girls. Make sure they work on TV. Try them on focus groups, across the country"
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
I guess they want to get a new leader as soon as possible to try and stop the Tories controlling the narrative so much. One of the big criticisms of 2010 was how drawn out the leadership contest was.
Focus groups? Have they not seen that focus groups are part of the problem, not the solution?
correct.
one of the delightful ironies of lefty demonisation is shy voters just lie since they don't want the hasle and all the data is screwed up as a result.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
12 years ago I was a politics a-level student and my tutor (a Labour supporter) tried to convince me that it was in the Tories' interest to have electoral reform. Based on the 2001 election he argued that FPTP was hurting the Tories.
But I disagreed with him because I had a gut feeling that one day things would be different. After the 2010 election I started to have my doubts, but now I've been proved right. It's not impossible that the Tories could increase their majority in 2020 and Ukip could begin to do to Labour what the Lib Dems did to the Tories.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Lib Dems saying 5,000 joined since election - it would be interesting to see how many have joined the conservatives
TLG86 Unless Cameron fails to get any renegotiations he will have to lead In, which leads to potential 'betrayal' cries from Kippers and eurosceptics when he allies with the Labour and LD leaderships
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
12 years ago I was a politics a-level student and my tutor (a Labour supporter) was tried to convince me that it was in the Tories' interest to have electoral reform. Based on the 2001 election he argued that FPTP was hurting the Tories.
But I disagreed with him because I had a gut feeling that one day things would be different. After the 2010 election I started to have my doubts, but now I've been proved right. It's not impossible that the Tories could increase their majority in 2020 as Ukip could begin to do to Labour what the Lib Dems did to the Tories.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Lib Dems saying 5,000 joined since election - it would be interesting to see how many have joined the conservatives
At least two from this parish. As PB goes, so does the country
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Please say that it's actually 11.4%
I don't want to goad OGH but, for the record, he did repeatedly say that the lead the Conservatives must maintain over Labour before they stopped losing seats in England was 11.4%. He was quite critical of those that disagreed, myself included.
Let it be known that the Conservatives only led Labour by 9.4% in England.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Is the TV GE coverage on iPlayer? I fell into a happy drunken stupor between Swindon and dawn (already assured the Tories would win) and would love to see that bit unfold: 2-5am.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Is the TV GE coverage on iPlayer? I fell into a happy drunken stupor between Swindon and dawn (already assured the Tories would win) and would love to see that bit unfold: 2-5am.
Yes it is. The Scottish and Welsh coverage is also available. I'm going to watch the Scottish show shortly because the UK-wide one with Dimbleby was a bit disappointing. They didn't show many Scottish MPs losing their seats apart from Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy. I'd like to see Tom Clarke losing in Coatbridge.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Holy mother of... That's before the boundary changes right? So they'd probably need a 15% lead after them. That is never, ever going to happen.
Before the boundary changes, yes.
They've done so badly in the marginals that many of them have moved away from them to an enormous extent.
That's insane. It's hard to even imagine how the Conservatives could lose 2020. Needing to be 15% ahead even before adjusting for a re-run of the 40/40 strategy... The next Labour leader is merely cannon fodder.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Is the TV GE coverage on iPlayer? I fell into a happy drunken stupor between Swindon and dawn (already assured the Tories would win) and would love to see that bit unfold: 2-5am.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
And that's before the boundaries are reformed, which will probably make it even harder for Labour.
Listening on iplayer to the BBC R5 coverage of GE night - it's beautiful listening to all the dissing of the exit poll and the lefties hanging on the YouGov poll which came out showing the 'norm' of what was expected. 'We know it's been close, the exit poll doesn't feel right'
Is the TV GE coverage on iPlayer? I fell into a happy drunken stupor between Swindon and dawn (already assured the Tories would win) and would love to see that bit unfold: 2-5am.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Ha. Of course, I will be very disappointed on some things, I'm sure. But it's no use carping on the sidelines. I also think UKIP have been set-back by this result.
Defence is a big issue for me. I now think I can achieve more on influencing that from within the inside of the party.
parties should always be broad churches, you never get everything but if you get some so be it.
I wish I could convince good people like you and Sean Fear to join me. I don't want to be lonely!
well I've been enjoying life outside the tribal tent. However if Cameron can make an effort to get his righties back on board he will have done a cracking job by 2020.
I don't buy a lot of the post victory story as victors write history I think Cameron has had a fair slice of luck. But never knock luck, it's in short supply and if you have it use it as it opens up opportunities you might never have had.
I hope Cameron uses it wisely, it will never get better for him.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
12 years ago I was a politics a-level student and my tutor (a Labour supporter) was tried to convince me that it was in the Tories' interest to have electoral reform. Based on the 2001 election he argued that FPTP was hurting the Tories.
But I disagreed with him because I had a gut feeling that one day things would be different. After the 2010 election I started to have my doubts, but now I've been proved right. It's not impossible that the Tories could increase their majority in 2020 as Ukip could begin to do to Labour what the Lib Dems did to the Tories.
Careful, don't do a Sion Simon on us!
I'm not saying anything will happen, just that the landscape has changed, though I'm sure it will change again in the future.
What's really amused me is that I spent an hour last night explaining to a friend on Facebook that the left have no right to moan about FPTP as they accepted it when it favoured Labour.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Please say that it's actually 11.4%
I don't want to goad OGH but, for the record, he did repeatedly say that the lead the Conservatives must maintain over Labour before they stopped losing seats in England was 11.4%. He was quite critical of those that disagreed, myself included.
Let it be known that the Conservatives only led Labour by 9.4% in England.
The Conservatives gained seats.
Kudos to those who claimed the Tory vote in England would be much more efficient this time around.
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC , LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
In my nightmare situation, the Tory party fatally splits on Europe after Dave makes it a hat-trick of referendum victories.
Getting 1 in 7 current Tory voters might not be that difficult.
The EU referendum is *the* huge landmine for the Tories in this parliament.
That said, the whole of Europe seems genuinely stunned by the result in the UK and quite panicky about it, seemingly fearing for the whole future of the EU. And Cameron is sending over the best team for renegotiation he's got.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
12 years ago I was a politics a-level student and my tutor (a Labour supporter) was tried to convince me that it was in the Tories' interest to have electoral reform. Based on the 2001 election he argued that FPTP was hurting the Tories.
But I disagreed with him because I had a gut feeling that one day things would be different. After the 2010 election I started to have my doubts, but now I've been proved right. It's not impossible that the Tories could increase their majority in 2020 as Ukip could begin to do to Labour what the Lib Dems did to the Tories.
Careful, don't do a Sion Simon on us!
I'm not saying anything will happen, just that the landscape has changed, though I'm sure it will change again in the future.
What's really amused me is that I spent an hour last night explaining to a friend on Facebook that the left have no right to moan about FPTP as they accepted it when it favoured Labour.
I remember the hundreds of comments here saying Tories should have supported AV as they'd never get a majority again.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories? .
The SW problem feels particularly acute (although that may just be because that is where I reside). Other areas are essentially no go areas for a long time, so aren't as important in terms of the initial attempts at recovery, but they were strong here in the SW, a place where outside of some specific areas people just have no experience of voting Labour if they are not Tory voters. Now the LDs were forced into 4th place behind UKIP and Lab in many places - if Labour can become the natural second placers to the Tories (even if they have no hope of winning the seats), it prevents the LDs from staging a recovery to fight for their old seats.
Yes. I do wonder where the LDs should start.
Perhaps a "soft" rebuild (focussing on recruiting party members and obtaining councillors) in areas of historic liberal strength, rather than going straight for parliamentary targets?
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
One way forward would be a cross party agreement to not stand against each other in 2020 - then implement PR and hold another election after 6 months.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
And that's before the boundaries are reformed, which will probably make it even harder for Labour.
And before the LDs recover a few seats...
It could easily be a 2 term project, unless a major SLAB recovery in Scotland or a formal Lab/SNP pact.
Also, in the next PMQs, it is going to be incredibly poignant when Nick Clegg asks Dave a question.
Well done you.
PB donate button would be handy for me please!
I'm sure many have noted that Cammo was derided for saying 'we just need 23 more seats' in the last few days of the campaign over and over. They ended up 24 of course.
A good example of a marginal moving away from Labour is Brigg & Goole. Before the election they needed a swing of 5.87% to gain the seat. Now it's 12.92%.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
As a fellow critic I'm with you on this. He's been the first incumbent PM for 100 years to increase their vote and seat share while felling his three closest rivals within an hour of each other while also making the left require a massive vote lead to get a majority.
If he manages to get meaningful reform in Europe as well as getting a balanced devolution settlement he will have shaped UK (& possibly EU) politics for the next 50 years. He manages to do that and he will go down in history, and as you say it will go Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron.
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC , LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
In my nightmare situation, the Tory party fatally splits on Europe after Dave makes it a hat-trick of referendum victories.
Getting 1 in 7 current Tory voters might not be that difficult.
The EU referendum is *the* huge landmine for the Tories in this parliament.
That said, the whole of Europe seems genuinely stunned by the result in the UK and quite panicky about it, seemingly fearing for the whole future of the EU. And Cameron is sending over the best team for renegotiation he's got.
Perhaps we might be surprised.
What happens with the Greek issue could have a huge bearing on our renegotiation with the EU. It could be that the EU is in a complete mess and would bend over backwards to keep us.
For some reason I get the feeling Greece will find the €750 million it needs on Tuesday.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Please say that it's actually 11.4%
I don't want to goad OGH but, for the record, he did repeatedly say that the lead the Conservatives must maintain over Labour before they stopped losing seats in England was 11.4%. He was quite critical of those that disagreed, myself included.
Let it be known that the Conservatives only led Labour by 9.4% in England.
The Conservatives gained seats.
Kudos to those who claimed the Tory vote in England would be much more efficient this time around.
Quite.
Also, all hail Dan Hodges of the "six percent Tory lead". Do any Labourites take the guy seriously, now?
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC , LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
In my nightmare situation, the Tory party fatally splits on Europe after Dave makes it a hat-trick of referendum victories.
Getting 1 in 7 current Tory voters might not be that difficult.
The EU referendum is *the* huge landmine for the Tories in this parliament.
That said, the whole of Europe seems genuinely stunned by the result in the UK and quite panicky about it, seemingly fearing for the whole future of the EU. And Cameron is sending over the best team for renegotiation he's got.
Perhaps we might be surprised.
This is going to be clumsily phrased, and it's not meant to wind up the Eurosceptics.
But having seen the Nats blithely ignore the results of a once in a lifetime referendum, I can see a wing of the Tory party, split off, saying David Cameron lied/misled us to keep us in the EU.
We'd be in a phase of a EU neverendum, and when the Tory Party focusses upon the EU, we inevitably get thrashed like a client of a Dominatrix at a forthcoming General Election.
It's hard for me to say this - as a seasoned Cameron critic - but he might actually go down as one of the most significant and successful Conservative leaders in history.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
sober up and give it a week :-)
Ha. Of course, I will be very disappointed on some things, I'm sure. But it's no use carping on the sidelines. I also think UKIP have been set-back by this result.
Defence is a big issue for me. I now think I can achieve more on influencing that from within the inside of the party.
parties should always be broad churches, you never get everything but if you get some so be it.
I wish I could convince good people like you and Sean Fear to join me. I don't want to be lonely!
well I've been enjoying life outside the tribal tent. However if Cameron can make an effort to get his righties back on board he will have done a cracking job by 2020.
I don't buy a lot of the post victory story as victors write history I think Cameron has had a fair slice of luck. But never knock luck, it's in short supply and if you have it use it as it opens up opportunities you might never have had.
I hope Cameron uses it wisely, it will never get better for him.
Yes, that's more or less my view. Cameron still has the same strengths and weaknesses he had before, and a lot of the result is luck. But, as Napoleon said, don't give me a clever general, give me a lucky one.
And Cameron has been very very lucky indeed. The test for him now is if he can co-opt and arbitrate across the whole of his party the same way he did with the Liberal Democrats.
In doing that, one of his weaknesses might actually turn out to be strength.
Also, in the next PMQs, it is going to be incredibly poignant when Nick Clegg asks Dave a question.
Well done you.
PB donate button would be handy for me please!
I'm sure many have noted that Cammo was derided for saying 'we just need 23 more seats' in the last few days of the campaign over and over. They ended up 24 of course.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories? .
The SW problem feels particularly acute (although that may just be because that is where I reside). Other areas are essentially no go areas for a long time, so aren't as important in terms of the initial attempts at recovery, but they were strong here in the SW, a place where outside of some specific areas people just have no experience of voting Labour if they are not Tory voters. Now the LDs were forced into 4th place behind UKIP and Lab in many places - if Labour can become the natural second placers to the Tories (even if they have no hope of winning the seats), it prevents the LDs from staging a recovery to fight for their old seats.
Yes. I do wonder where the LDs should start.
Perhaps a "soft" rebuild (focussing on recruiting party members and obtaining councillors) in areas of historic liberal strength, rather than going straight for parliamentary targets?
Apparently 6000 new members have joined the LDs since Thursday. Does it require a defeat to get people to join a party nowadays?
The next five years on here are going to be dismal.
Like when the Tories were in the wilderness and Sean Fear was the lone tory voice..
Now if you could persuade IOS to come on here and explain what was so wonderful about the Labour ground game, I am sure everyone on here will be all ears.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Labour are truly in an awful, awful place. And, as you say, that's just on the current boundaries.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories?
The 2020GE is for the Tories to lose, IMHO.
So far as the Lib Dems are concerned, I'm reminded of the scene at the end of the Addams Family:
Pugsley: Are they dead? Wednesday: Does it matter?
I actually laughed at this.
I've been trying to write micro-obituaries for the departed Lib Dem MPs. It's exhuasting and I don't think I've got through more than a quarter of them yet...
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC, LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
I can't help but feel that unless they can win Scotland back, the left (Labour specifically) is screwed.
A few caveats. Plaid Cymru and the Greens don't matter much. They are almost always strong where another progressive party is also strong. The SNP is similar as long as it can win seats, but it matters for narrative reasons to placate then Eng Nats. Then again, it's not unthinkable that the next UK election could feature no Scotland. Things have changed a lot since Thursday. The 2015 election was definitely the worst environment for Lab-LD mutual tactical voting ever, and the worst imaginable environment bar a Con-LD Coalition coupon. Ukip should be considered, in part, one of the splitters of the progressive vote. Some 2015 Ukip voters might consider Labour, and vice versa.
So EdM's mission was to get the Red Libs, and he failed dismally. The next leader will have to deal with those questions. Dealing with the SNP, recreating mutual sympathy with liberals, and inspiring the working-classes.
I fear for the Union that the SNP question looms largest of all, and that Labour's job in England and Wales would be easier if Scotland left the Union. On the one hand, the left would have to win over 25 new seats in England and Wales to make up for losing Scotland. On the other hand, with the SNP bogeyman set free, perhaps that's not undoable.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
This really highlights the effect of losing Scotland to the SNP on the long-term chances of Labour getting back into government. They are in many way worse off than they were after the election in 1987.
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories? .
The SW problem feels particularly acute (although that may just be because that is where I reside). Other areas are essentially no go areas for a long time, so aren't as important in terms of the initial attempts at recovery, but they were strong here in the SW, a place where outside of some specific areas people just have no experience of voting Labour if they are not Tory voters. Now the LDs were forced into 4th place behind UKIP and Lab in many places - if Labour can become the natural second placers to the Tories (even if they have no hope of winning the seats), it prevents the LDs from staging a recovery to fight for their old seats.
Yes. I do wonder where the LDs should start.
Perhaps a "soft" rebuild (focussing on recruiting party members and obtaining councillors) in areas of historic liberal strength, rather than going straight for parliamentary targets?
They should focus on their councillor base to rebuild and create a few areas where people get into the habit of voting LibDem before slowly gaining seats (and also giun councillors where they have MPs to ensure their survival). They will survive.
It's odd. A year ago, the story was how the left was united while the right was divided. As of today, the progressive vote is split between Labour, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. Whoever leads Labour next is going to have to work out how to get that vote to coalesce again.
According to AndyJS they will need a larger than 8% swing to get a majority (11% lead in national vote). That is before the boundary changes which may push it up to a 15% lead required. They'd need to get the entire PC , LD and Green vote as well as about 1 in 7 of all current Conservative voters...
In my nightmare situation, the Tory party fatally splits on Europe after Dave makes it a hat-trick of referendum victories.
Getting 1 in 7 current Tory voters might not be that difficult.
The EU referendum is *the* huge landmine for the Tories in this parliament.
That said, the whole of Europe seems genuinely stunned by the result in the UK and quite panicky about it, seemingly fearing for the whole future of the EU. And Cameron is sending over the best team for renegotiation he's got.
Perhaps we might be surprised.
This is going to be clumsily phrased, and it's not meant to wind up the Eurosceptics.
But having seen the Nats blithely ignore the results of a once in a lifetime referendum, I can see a wing of the Tory party, split off, saying David Cameron lied/misled us to keep us in the EU.
We'd be in a phase of a EU neverendum, and when the Tory Party focusses upon the EU, we inevitably get thrashed like a client of a Dominatrix at a forthcoming General Election.
I think we're very traumatised by what happened in the 1990s. We fear it, but I don't think the same thing will happen again.
There might be 5-10 MPs who act like that, but not 30-40 MPs as some might fear. I think most Conservatives will be delighted at the prospect of locking the centre-left out of power for a generation, and will see the bigger picture.
Comments
New MP for Bath is the new addition to LGTB Tories.
Retreads are former MPs coming back...unless I misspellt the word
Almost unnoticed the Tories have had major success in the local elections winning 30 councils and nearly 500 extra councillors. In contrast Labour and especially the Lib Dems lost heavily.
I mean in the Thatcher/Churchill class. Seriously. He could end up changing the whole political centre-of-gravity in the UK. And possibly the EU too.
I gravely underestimated him, despite enthusiastically voting for him in the 2005 leadership election. I feel embarrassed I lost faith in the last nine months.
I am rejoining the Conservative party as a member tomorrow.
Agree 100%. There is plenty of time before the next GE - why the rush?
It wasn't - it was even worse than it predicted.
It is what happened in 2010
I've been through the results compiling Labour targets for 2020 on the current boundaries. I assumed that confining myself to seats where Labour requires a swing of up to 8% would yield them the 94 gains they need for a majority. In fact it's yielded them just 87 seats. Therefore the swing needed is more than 8%; it must be around 8.5% or even 9%. On UNS that means they would have to be ahead in the national vote share by around 11%.
Defence is a big issue for me. I now think I can achieve more on influencing that from within the inside of the party.
And how do the Liberal Democrats recover from this in the south-west, and elsewhere, to recapture the seats they lost from the Tories?
The 2020GE is for the Tories to lose, IMHO.
EDIT
@alstewitn: Breaching an embargo is a poor way to get an exclusive.
They've done so badly in the marginals that many of them have moved away from them to an enormous extent.
Aberdeen South
East Lothian
Edinburgh North
Edinburgh South West
Paisley South
Renfrewshire South
Who is he/she? Wish I knew...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05sxmp4
Of the other 2010 intake I think Stella Creasy is the only one worth tipping. I think Liz and her are pretty friendly so probably discussed, but just possibly Liz knew Stella would enter so got off the blocks first.
Good stakes still on Stella . I have had a nibble.
Pugsley: Are they dead?
Wednesday: Does it matter?
steven nolan 'this exit poll is too good to be true for the conservatives'.
bbc host there.
Still, it has happened. Pinch me.
(Boring technical stuff only of interest to utter nerds) Its a while since I looked at how they link following bots work but from memory it runs whatever javascript occurs on page load and nothing after. So it allows vanilla to load the final 100 comments in a thread but doesn't attempt to load and index the previous comments any before the final 100...
I can't help but feel that unless they can win Scotland back, the left (Labour specifically) is screwed.
A good leader has five years to change or set the narrative.
I probably need to reflect on this for several weeks. I just can't digest it right now.
Getting 1 in 7 current Tory voters might not be that difficult.
one of the delightful ironies of lefty demonisation is shy voters just lie since they don't want the hasle and all the data is screwed up as a result.
It was very thoughtful of Ed Miliband.
But I disagreed with him because I had a gut feeling that one day things would be different. After the 2010 election I started to have my doubts, but now I've been proved right. It's not impossible that the Tories could increase their majority in 2020 and Ukip could begin to do to Labour what the Lib Dems did to the Tories.
Let it be known that the Conservatives only led Labour by 9.4% in England.
The Conservatives gained seats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t9sk3/election-2015-1-election-2015-part-1
And will be there for the next 8 months by the look of it.
I just donated £50 to the Lib Dems.
I feel incredibly guilty for shafting them.
Also, in the next PMQs, it is going to be incredibly poignant when Nick Clegg asks Dave a question.
Also, I expect AndyJS will have them on YouTube to preserve them for posterity!
R5 only there for 27 days.
I don't buy a lot of the post victory story as victors write history I think Cameron has had a fair slice of luck. But never knock luck, it's in short supply and if you have it use it as it opens up opportunities you might never have had.
I hope Cameron uses it wisely, it will never get better for him.
What's really amused me is that I spent an hour last night explaining to a friend on Facebook that the left have no right to moan about FPTP as they accepted it when it favoured Labour.
That said, the whole of Europe seems genuinely stunned by the result in the UK and quite panicky about it, seemingly fearing for the whole future of the EU. And Cameron is sending over the best team for renegotiation he's got.
Perhaps we might be surprised.
What did I miss regarding pensions and energy posts?
Perhaps a "soft" rebuild (focussing on recruiting party members and obtaining councillors) in areas of historic liberal strength, rather than going straight for parliamentary targets?
They might even get UKIP on board.
Will he? He won't be leader of the Lib Dems.
It could easily be a 2 term project, unless a major SLAB recovery in Scotland or a formal Lab/SNP pact.
PB donate button would be handy for me please!
I'm sure many have noted that Cammo was derided for saying 'we just need 23 more seats' in the last few days of the campaign over and over. They ended up 24 of course.
If he manages to get meaningful reform in Europe as well as getting a balanced devolution settlement he will have shaped UK (& possibly EU) politics for the next 50 years. He manages to do that and he will go down in history, and as you say it will go Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron.
There are a lot of ifs though.
For some reason I get the feeling Greece will find the €750 million it needs on Tuesday.
Also, all hail Dan Hodges of the "six percent Tory lead". Do any Labourites take the guy seriously, now?
But having seen the Nats blithely ignore the results of a once in a lifetime referendum, I can see a wing of the Tory party, split off, saying David Cameron lied/misled us to keep us in the EU.
We'd be in a phase of a EU neverendum, and when the Tory Party focusses upon the EU, we inevitably get thrashed like a client of a Dominatrix at a forthcoming General Election.
And Cameron has been very very lucky indeed. The test for him now is if he can co-opt and arbitrate across the whole of his party the same way he did with the Liberal Democrats.
In doing that, one of his weaknesses might actually turn out to be strength.
“Dan wants to help Labour in any way he can but he needs to put his children first.”
He seems a great guy.
Now if you could persuade IOS to come on here and explain what was so wonderful about the Labour ground game, I am sure everyone on here will be all ears.
I've been trying to write micro-obituaries for the departed Lib Dem MPs. It's exhuasting and I don't think I've got through more than a quarter of them yet...
Plaid Cymru and the Greens don't matter much. They are almost always strong where another progressive party is also strong.
The SNP is similar as long as it can win seats, but it matters for narrative reasons to placate then Eng Nats. Then again, it's not unthinkable that the next UK election could feature no Scotland. Things have changed a lot since Thursday.
The 2015 election was definitely the worst environment for Lab-LD mutual tactical voting ever, and the worst imaginable environment bar a Con-LD Coalition coupon.
Ukip should be considered, in part, one of the splitters of the progressive vote. Some 2015 Ukip voters might consider Labour, and vice versa.
So EdM's mission was to get the Red Libs, and he failed dismally. The next leader will have to deal with those questions. Dealing with the SNP, recreating mutual sympathy with liberals, and inspiring the working-classes.
I fear for the Union that the SNP question looms largest of all, and that Labour's job in England and Wales would be easier if Scotland left the Union. On the one hand, the left would have to win over 25 new seats in England and Wales to make up for losing Scotland. On the other hand, with the SNP bogeyman set free, perhaps that's not undoable.
There might be 5-10 MPs who act like that, but not 30-40 MPs as some might fear. I think most Conservatives will be delighted at the prospect of locking the centre-left out of power for a generation, and will see the bigger picture.