politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why it is not smart making non-voters your main priority

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why it is not smart making non-voters your main priority

It’s a seductive strategy that all parties try from time to time – make going for non-voters the main strategy but it is a wrong one. I’d argue that it is easier to persuade interested election participants to change than it is to get those who never turnout to alter their habits.

Read the full story here

MikeK

First????

Sean_F

I don't see much evidence that there is a hidden reservoir of voters who would turn out if only Labour were sufficiently left wing.

Philip_Thompson

Very good analogy and absolutely spot on.

SandyRentool

I think we can widen it to all non-Tory voters. If we can win over Nats, Greens, Kippers, LDs and non-voters, then it is possible to win without Con-Lab switchers.

Basically, we need everyone vaguely left of centre or NOTA to vote Labour.

AlastairMeeks

It would be good to have more polling on why non-voters don't vote. But the basic point is hard to argue with: non-voters are not a particularly rewarding source of votes.

El_Capitano

I would largely agree with OGH, but I believe it _is_ possible to mobilise non-voters to vote - part of Obama's original success came from that. It's just very, very difficult.

For Labour, the challenge is therefore whether they can organise to get the non-voters actually voting. I suspect much of this comes down to the choice of deputy. Creasy is an experienced community organiser and could do it; Watson is a Westminster/union hack and couldn't.

Philip_Thompson

HurstLlama said:

Sean_F said:

HurstLlama said:

watford30 said:

Sean_F said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

Fine, we go to war with Russia. What with?

America.

As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.

But then, I doubt if the Russians could.

The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.

So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?

You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?

Mutual self-defence. I can't see anything at all to be gained by winding up NATO. What do we lose by being a member of it, and what would we gain if it didn't exist?

Perhaps we might gain a realistic defence and foreign policy rather than one rooted in myth and/or wishful thinking.

We have a realistic defence and foreign policy, its called NATO. Had NATO not existed we'd have seen more wars vs Russia/the USSR. Because it exists we don't need to go to war. The very purpose of NATO is to not need to use it.

MikeK

I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever.
While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit.

If UKIP don't make Cammo's referendum theirs, they will suffer the doom reserved for failure.

I say they, even though I'm a member of UKIP, if an inactive one.

Carolus_Rex

SandyRentool said:

I think we can widen it to all non-Tory voters. If we can win over Nats, Greens, Kippers, LDs and non-voters, then it is possible to win without Con-Lab switchers.

Basically, we need everyone vaguely left of centre or NOTA to vote Labour.

Out of the groups you named I can't see Corbyn or any of the other candidates getting anywhere with any of them except maybe some of the Greens.

Disraeli

Apologies for reposting from August 26th, but I feel that it is very relevant to this thread.

At the General Election the Tories polled 1,987,272 more votes than Labour. (BBC figures)
Suppose that a Corbyn led Labour party persuaded non-voters to vote Labour, so that Labour gained 2,987,272 extra voters (thus outpolling the Tories by a million voters).

THE QUESTION: If these extra votes were distributed equally in each constituency in Great Britain, how many extra seats do you think Labour would get?

THE ANSWER:
46 (39 in England, 5 in Wales, 2 in Scotland)
Losses: Cons 41, LD 2, SNP 2, PC 1

STATE OF PARTIES
Cons 289
Lab 278
SNP 54
LD 6
Others 21 (18 NI, 1 Green, 1 UKIP, 1 Speaker)

--and---

In fact to gain 326 seats on this model *, Labour would need to pick up 5,035,164 non-voters and poll 14,382,468 votes. For the record, even under Blair in 1997 Labour only got 13,518,167 votes!

It's no good basing an election winning strategy on a core vote + returning non-voters. Labour need to win back voters from other parties, and I can't see Corbyn doing that.

MarqueeMark

I struggle to understand how people - who must have been knocking on real doors and actually SPEAKING to these real non-voters - can think they can turn these folks round with a strategy based on a quasi-Marxist offering.

These people are strongly committed to the Can't Be Arsed Party.... For the most part, they ain't for turning.

Pulpstar

The SNP got some former non voters out to the polls, but that was the icing on their cake. The bread and butter were Labour switchers.

Disraeli/Old whig have done some analysis on this, even if you get all the non voters out in droves, it won't win the election for Labour. They need 1997-2005 Labour/2010-15 Tory switchers back in order to win.

Philip_Thompson

El_Capitano said:

I would largely agree with OGH, but I believe it _is_ possible to mobilise non-voters to vote - part of Obama's original success came from that. It's just very, very difficult.

For Labour, the challenge is therefore whether they can organise to get the non-voters actually voting. I suspect much of this comes down to the choice of deputy. Creasy is an experienced community organiser and could do it; Watson is a Westminster/union hack and couldn't.

Did it really come from non-voters in 2008? I know that's been said but Turnout was barely up on 2004.

MTimT

El_Capitano said:

I would largely agree with OGH, but I believe it _is_ possible to mobilise non-voters to vote - part of Obama's original success came from that. It's just very, very difficult.

For Labour, the challenge is therefore whether they can organise to get the non-voters actually voting. I suspect much of this comes down to the choice of deputy. Creasy is an experienced community organiser and could do it; Watson is a Westminster/union hack and couldn't.

But for Obama, part of the reason of his success in getting out non-voters was that it was, for the voters he targeted, easy - the non-voters he got were in high population density areas and could be readily accessed through the churches, putting on transport and organizing through an existing mechanism.

I don't think such a mechanism exists for Labour.

david_herdson

In an ever-less-aligned electorate, it does seem odd to concentrate on those who never vote rather than the increasing number who regularly do but are willing to switch about.

Getting former non-voters should be a bonus not the main objective.

Pulpstar

MTimT said:

El_Capitano said:

I would largely agree with OGH, but I believe it _is_ possible to mobilise non-voters to vote - part of Obama's original success came from that. It's just very, very difficult.

For Labour, the challenge is therefore whether they can organise to get the non-voters actually voting. I suspect much of this comes down to the choice of deputy. Creasy is an experienced community organiser and could do it; Watson is a Westminster/union hack and couldn't.

But for Obama, part of the reason of his success in getting out non-voters was that it was, for the voters he targeted, easy - the non-voters he got were in high population density areas and could be readily accessed through the churches, putting on transport and organizing through an existing mechanism.

I don't think such a mechanism exists for Labour.

Turnout went up 1.5% from 2004 to 2008 in the USA.

Philip_Thompson

MTimT said:

El_Capitano said:

I would largely agree with OGH, but I believe it _is_ possible to mobilise non-voters to vote - part of Obama's original success came from that. It's just very, very difficult.

For Labour, the challenge is therefore whether they can organise to get the non-voters actually voting. I suspect much of this comes down to the choice of deputy. Creasy is an experienced community organiser and could do it; Watson is a Westminster/union hack and couldn't.

But for Obama, part of the reason of his success in getting out non-voters was that it was, for the voters he targeted, easy - the non-voters he got were in high population density areas and could be readily accessed through the churches, putting on transport and organizing through an existing mechanism.

I don't think such a mechanism exists for Labour.

Plus in America's Presidential Election its basically First Past The Post across entire States rather than seats. Thus a vote is a vote across the State regardless of whether its inner city or rural.

Labour's high density population areas aren't in marginal seats here. If they went that route they'd be piling up extra votes in safe seats. AKA Miliband's strategy.

SimonStClare

The trouble with basing your electoral strategy on appealing to non-voters is they already belong to the ‘don’t care, can’t be bothered’ party.

felix

Sean_F said:

I don't see much evidence that there is a hidden reservoir of voters who would turn out if only Labour were sufficiently left wing.

Quite - much more likely that Labour will shed moderate voters to 'anyone but Labour!

SandyRentool said:

I think we can widen it to all non-Tory voters. If we can win over Nats, Greens, Kippers, LDs and non-voters, then it is possible to win without Con-Lab switchers.

Basically, we need everyone vaguely left of centre or NOTA to vote Labour.

One can only hope you're jesting. Otherwise you need serious help.

calum

BES concluded that the Lazy Labour voters was a significant factor in their defeat, Labour need to understand why folks didn't turnout in May 2015.

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/why-did-the-polls-go-wrong-by-jon-mellon-and-chris-prosser/#.VeBkUpWFNQx

Another consideration is that around 4 to 5 million younger voters will be eligible to vote by 2020, at the moment this segment seems to be a good hunting ground for Labour. Also will be interesting to monitor voting patterns as folks get older, will the silver surfers of 2020 be as conservative as they're now or will they be more anti establishment ?

SquareRoot

calum said:

BES concluded that the Lazy Labour voters was a significant factor in their defeat, Labour need to understand why folks didn't turnout in May 2015.

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/why-did-the-polls-go-wrong-by-jon-mellon-and-chris-prosser/#.VeBkUpWFNQx

Another consideration is that around 4 to 5 million younger voters will be eligible to vote by 2020, at the moment this segment seems to be a good hunting ground for Labour. Also will be interesting to monitor voting patterns as folks get older, will the silver surfers of 2020 be as conservative as they're now or will they be more anti establishment ?

It wasn't that they were lazy, it was they couldn't see Ed as Prime Minister and hence did not vote or voted Tory or UKIP.

It will be the same next time . Voters know what reality is. Corbyn won't be offering it as he has no idea what reality is.

HurstLlama

Philip_Thompson said:

HurstLlama said:

Sean_F said:

HurstLlama said:

watford30 said:

Sean_F said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

Fine, we go to war with Russia. What with?

America.

As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.

But then, I doubt if the Russians could.

The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.

So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?

You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?

Mutual self-defence. I can't see anything at all to be gained by winding up NATO. What do we lose by being a member of it, and what would we gain if it didn't exist?

Perhaps we might gain a realistic defence and foreign policy rather than one rooted in myth and/or wishful thinking.

We have a realistic defence and foreign policy, its called NATO. ...

You may want to think that through, maybe even read Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

However, a new thread so I'll let it go at that.

Philip_Thompson

calum said:

Another consideration is that around 4 to 5 million younger voters will be eligible to vote by 2020

How is this new or any different to any other election?

Every election has millions of younger first time voters eligible, always has and always will. Its no different in 2020 than any other. We all at one stage had a first election.

My first election was in 2001. Labour had just introduced tuition fees for the first time ever. Not much changed because of young voters though.

CarlottaVance

Pulpstar said:

The SNP got some former non voters out to the polls, but that was the icing on their cake. The bread and butter were Labour switchers.

Yes - I think for a major question, going after non-voters can be a good - additional - strategy - but for a GE - fugedaboutit!

I had thought the well of 'Labour Bad Ideas' must have run dry.....but no!

Sunil_Prasannan

Excellent PB Tory Propaganda piece, Mike

HurstLlama

SeanT said:

It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.

If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.

Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HurstLlama said:

"Corbyn is a disaster..."

Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.

For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.

I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.

when you signing up or do you plan to support from behind the sofa

From behind the sofa? That's so 20th century. Like my support for the Iraq War in 2003 I'd support them from behind the keyboard.

Bravo. I'll see you in the trenches. That is, PB.

kle4

EPG said:
» show previous quotes
It's funny how Tories believe discredited defamatory defectors from the KGB when it suits them.

It's also pretty evident that the PB comment mainstream may complain about how left-wingers engage in echo chamber groupthink, but they don't appreciate any headers that disagree with their worldview in any significant way.


Some may not appreciate it but I hope most do, if not as vocally. Its important to get differing viewpoints. I think this piece has some flawed premises but I think that about a lot of threads (and I hope I think that not just about ones I disagree with). PBers, like the public at large, do not always know what is good fore them.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

When [finally] the next book's out I'll be trying to persuade people who buy books to buy it. I won't be going on Ihatebooksandreading.com to try and sell it.

However, there *is* some churn between voters and non-voters. It's not enough by itself, but Labour could enthuse some serial non-voters to turn out for them.

AndyJS

Local election results are generally a poor guide to how people vote at general elections. For example the LDs should have polled around 15% using local election projections. They actually received 8%.

Plato

https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/637264019057942528

CarlottaVance

Morris_Dancer said:

Labour could enthuse some serial non-voters to turn out for them.

To do that, I would suggest that they would need a compelling vision of what Britain should be like, with policies to match - and that's going to be even more effective among persuadable voters.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

john_zims

With Corbyn as leader the chances of getting any 2015 Tories to switch is close to zero, Labour is not going to outdo the SNP as the anti austerity party,the Lib Dems are already at core vote level & Corbyn's immigration policies will repel UKIP voters.

Maybe some Greens for Labour to pick up to offset the voters they will lose because of Corbyn.

CarlottaVance

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

Yes, that's true. I also suspect their last winning formula 'We're as economically competent as the Tories, but a lot nicer' won't be seeing the light of day anytime soon.....

Richard_Nabavi

We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, when's that vote? Early September?

kle4

On topic, mobilising non-voters can happen, in exceptional circumstances even in large numbers, and you should try your best to get them as it can make the difference. But your strategy should not rely on them turning out, or your efforts to appeal to them actually put off even more of those who already support you.

It might work, but it is damn risky.

AlastairMeeks

Richard_Nabavi said:

We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.

Bigger fools than all the fools (including yours truly) who predicted a hung Parliament which at one point was trading around 1.05 just before the general election?

Philip_Thompson

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

Richard_Nabavi

antifrank said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.

Bigger fools than all the fools (including yours truly) who predicted a hung Parliament which at one point was trading around 1.05 just before the general election?

A good reminder that it doesn't always work out as expected.

What's most surprising is that the odds haven't collapsed down to something 1.05 or 1.1, given that virtually everyone is behaving as though it's a done deal.

david_herdson

AndyJS said:

Local election results are generally a poor guide to how people vote at general elections. For example the LDs should have polled around 15% using local election projections. They actually received 8%.

I disagree. Local elections are a very good guide (far better than the Euros or mayoral elections); it's just that, as with by-elections, you can't read straight across from one to the other.

The Lib Dems always out-poll their GE score at locals (when they were low-20s in the national polls, they were mid- to high-20s in the locals). Similarly, in a normalish Westminster by-election (i.e. not Scottish, no significant minor party presence, no major local issues etc.), the swing to / from the governing party will be about double that which they'd get at a GE.

john_zims

@MikeK

'I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever.
While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit. '

With UKIP's increased vote share in many Labour constituencies I would have thought that Paul Nuttall would be a better choice as leader and performs well on TV.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Thompson, indeed. It's not just the lingering whiff of Farage, it's his prevented others to get more airtime.

kle4

Richard_Nabavi said:

We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.

In that case, I predict an ABC victory. I'm usually wrong anyway, so no worries if JC does win, and what acclaim if I am 'right'.

david_herdson

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

When [finally] the next book's out I'll be trying to persuade people who buy books to buy it. I won't be going on Ihatebooksandreading.com to try and sell it.

However, there *is* some churn between voters and non-voters. It's not enough by itself, but Labour could enthuse some serial non-voters to turn out for them.

Indeed, though only by offering something that both they and their primary opponents haven't offered before - and offering it is unlikely to be cost-free (otherwise someone would have done so).

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

A shame. They didn't start picking up in the last parliament for a few years, iirc, but as you say things could have been different this time while they occupy themselves with internal shenanigans. Silly.

kle4

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.

If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.

Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.

Perhaps 45% is optimistic. But certainly over 40% should be achievable for Tories, with the Jezbollah on the march.

Shall we make absurd predix which will almost certainly never come true?

If Corbyn the Commie leads Labour against, say, Osborne's Tories, I OFFICIALLY predict a GE outcome of:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35


Not quite annihilation.

The doomsday result for Labour is Tories getting more than 45% as everyone is scared of Jezlamism.

Baxtered, that gives:

Cons: 429
Lab: 129

*dreams*

It's remarkable how low Labour could fall and yet the Tory majority would not be that large on a 15% gap. A nice comfort barrier to have, but could be complacent as a result.

Osborne vs Corbyn though - some people would really struggle with that choice.

Plato

OT Is this the weirdest floral tribute? https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes/status/637266773167968257

kle4

david_herdson said:

In an ever-less-aligned electorate, it does seem odd to concentrate on those who never vote rather than the increasing number who regularly do but are willing to switch about.

Getting former non-voters should be a bonus not the main objective.

It may be due to the misconception that fewer and fewer people are voting at each GE, which seems pretty ingrained in many people, thus assuming there are masses more people to engage with than is the case (which is not to say it is not worth attempting to engage the not inconsiderable number who are non-voters, but as you say it is a bonus)

david_herdson

MTimT said:

El_Capitano said:

I would largely agree with OGH, but I believe it _is_ possible to mobilise non-voters to vote - part of Obama's original success came from that. It's just very, very difficult.

For Labour, the challenge is therefore whether they can organise to get the non-voters actually voting. I suspect much of this comes down to the choice of deputy. Creasy is an experienced community organiser and could do it; Watson is a Westminster/union hack and couldn't.

But for Obama, part of the reason of his success in getting out non-voters was that it was, for the voters he targeted, easy - the non-voters he got were in high population density areas and could be readily accessed through the churches, putting on transport and organizing through an existing mechanism.

I don't think such a mechanism exists for Labour.

Obama also got lots of new voters from the low-income black communities - people who previously had little connection with or belief in the political system. Suddenly, they found that it had some relevance for them (or they believed it did).

By contrast, Corbyn speaks to and for an already politically-engaged community. He will not cure non-voters of their disaffection; if anything, he'll make it worse by going on about pet topics that mean little to the general public.

david_herdson

kle4 said:

david_herdson said:

In an ever-less-aligned electorate, it does seem odd to concentrate on those who never vote rather than the increasing number who regularly do but are willing to switch about.

Getting former non-voters should be a bonus not the main objective.

It may be due to the misconception that fewer and fewer people are voting at each GE, which seems pretty ingrained in many people, thus assuming there are masses more people to engage with than is the case (which is not to say it is not worth attempting to engage the not inconsiderable number who are non-voters, but as you say it is a bonus)

I think there's a distinction between the disengaged and the unaligned. Participation has been creeping up since 2001, though there's still a substantial block - 30%+ - who don't vote in anything. By contrast, those who do vote but don't closely identify long-term with any one party is the sector that it growing rapidly.

Philip_Thompson

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.

If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.

Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.

Perhaps 45% is optimistic. But certainly over 40% should be achievable for Tories, with the Jezbollah on the march.

Shall we make absurd predix which will almost certainly never come true?

If Corbyn the Commie leads Labour against, say, Osborne's Tories, I OFFICIALLY predict a GE outcome of:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35


Not quite annihilation.

The doomsday result for Labour is Tories getting more than 45% as everyone is scared of Jezlamism.

Baxtered, that gives:

Cons: 429
Lab: 129


*dreams*

Interestingly your first scenario gives the Tories a larger vote lead than Tony Blair had, though nowhere near as many MPs as Blair had. I suspect in reality a 15% vote lead would result in a far greater Tory seat lead as the Tories would outperform UNS in the marginals - as they did in both '10 and '15. Jezbollah's core vote is not in the marginals.

Richard_Nabavi

SeanT said:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35

Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.

HurstLlama

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.

If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.

Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.

Perhaps 45% is optimistic. But certainly over 40% should be achievable for Tories, with the Jezbollah on the march.

Shall we make absurd predix which will almost certainly never come true?

If Corbyn the Commie leads Labour against, say, Osborne's Tories, I OFFICIALLY predict a GE outcome of:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35


Not quite annihilation.

The doomsday result for Labour is Tories getting more than 45% as everyone is scared of Jezlamism.

Baxtered, that gives:

Cons: 429
Lab: 129

*dreams*

...

Osborne vs Corbyn though - some people would really struggle with that choice.

Me for one, but the 2020 GE won't just have two parties to vote for and Osborne will, probably, not be the Conservative leader.

Corbyn vs Truss or Javid is a more likely top two and then the choice between them become much more obvious.

foxinsoxuk

Plato said:

OT Is this the weirdest floral tribute? https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes/status/637266773167968257

Did he die of lung cancer?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?

david_herdson

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.

If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.

Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.

Perhaps 45% is optimistic. But certainly over 40% should be achievable for Tories, with the Jezbollah on the march.

Shall we make absurd predix which will almost certainly never come true?

If Corbyn the Commie leads Labour against, say, Osborne's Tories, I OFFICIALLY predict a GE outcome of:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35


Not quite annihilation.

The doomsday result for Labour is Tories getting more than 45% as everyone is scared of Jezlamism.

Baxtered, that gives:

Cons: 429
Lab: 129


*dreams*

Interestingly your first scenario gives the Tories a larger vote lead than Tony Blair had, though nowhere near as many MPs as Blair had. I suspect in reality a 15% vote lead would result in a far greater Tory seat lead as the Tories would outperform UNS in the marginals - as they did in both '10 and '15. Jezbollah's core vote is not in the marginals.

If there were a 15% Tory lead, there'd be a whole different set of marginals. The current ones would be moderately safe seats, before you even take into account differential swing.

tlg86

It's worth mentioning that the strategy of upping turnout among youngsters means that some of the target audience are currently aged 13 (assuming a 2020 election).

isam

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?

Pulpstar

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35

Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.

Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/united_kingdom/targets/lab

Not a chance Labour takes anything in Scotland past Edi South if they head back to 25%. And even that could look vulnerable.

The Scots have their left wing party, and whilst alot of new SNP voters may well give a sympathetic ear to Jezza they will vote SNP in the booth !

felix

HurstLlama said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

SeanT said:

It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.

If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.

Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.

Perhaps 45% is optimistic. But certainly over 40% should be achievable for Tories, with the Jezbollah on the march.

Shall we make absurd predix which will almost certainly never come true?

If Corbyn the Commie leads Labour against, say, Osborne's Tories, I OFFICIALLY predict a GE outcome of:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35


Not quite annihilation.

The doomsday result for Labour is Tories getting more than 45% as everyone is scared of Jezlamism.

Baxtered, that gives:

Cons: 429
Lab: 129

*dreams*

...

Osborne vs Corbyn though - some people would really struggle with that choice.

Me for one, but the 2020 GE won't just have two parties to vote for and Osborne will, probably, not be the Conservative leader.

Corbyn vs Truss or Javid is a more likely top two and then the choice between them become much more obvious.

All depends on the state of the economy for Osborne. On the general point I suspect any extra Labour voters from whatever source will be concentrated almost exclusively in places they don't need them - East London, the urban NE/NW/ Brum with maybe a small recovery in Glasgow. And they will lose heavily in most areas where the marginals are - pockets of north and south London, small towns in the Midlands, North and NW, Wales and probably a few of their remaining southern bastions. The tories might even get a couple more Scottish seats.

Philip_Thompson

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?

It's tough to measure at the moment but I'd go on.

1: The media - frequent appearances and setting the agenda.
2: Opinion polls - should be higher ratings than the GE.
3: Local by-elections - swings towards UKIP.

1: The agenda is heading towards UKIPs territory despite not because of UKIP.
2: Opinion poll ratings for UKIP have been lower rather than higher.
3: By election results have been terrible. UKIP have been contenders and incumbents in many and lost all but one and seen a swing against in virtually all.

isam

Just heard that Theresa Gorman has died

CarlottaVance

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35

Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.

Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)

No chance. The SNP are busy promising free money they don't actually have to raise.....Jerry, of Tom & Jerry, might actually have to try to explain where it comes from.....

MarkHopkins

isam said:

Just heard that Theresa Gorman has died

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/former-tory-mp-teresa-gorman-dies-aged-83-11364000703482

isam

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?

It's tough to measure at the moment but I'd go on.

1: The media - frequent appearances and setting the agenda.
2: Opinion polls - should be higher ratings than the GE.
3: Local by-elections - swings towards UKIP.

1: The agenda is heading towards UKIPs territory despite not because of UKIP.
2: Opinion poll ratings for UKIP have been lower rather than higher.
3: By election results have been terrible. UKIP have been contenders and incumbents in many and lost all but one and seen a swing against in virtually all.

I'll give you 3, and half of 2 (only half as there haven been enough polls, particularly recently)

As for media performances, I saw Farage on ITV This Morning yesterday which was practically a UKIP PEB / OUT campaign propaganda! At the same time, Steven Woolfe was on the BBCs Victoria Derbyshire show, whilst that night Carswell was on Newsnight

Either way, I think, as you say its tough to measure, and that anyone saying they were making hay or making no progress is guessing really

Financier

Some interesting backgrounds here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11820890/The-five-pillars-of-Jeremy-Corbyns-bid-to-run-Britain.html

Morris_Dancer

Question to which the answer is Yes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34071842

Broadcasting the location of people hiding during a live terrorist incident is bloody irresponsible. They're right to sue.

Recidivist

MikeK said:

I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever.
While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit.

If UKIP don't make Cammo's referendum theirs, they will suffer the doom reserved for failure.

I say they, even though I'm a member of UKIP, if an inactive one.

I think UKIP represent a distinctive point of view, so they ought to be able to survive Farage, and even a referendum. I have a feeling that they might last longer than the Lib Dems, even if the Lib Dems better organisation makes them look the stronger of the two in the short run.

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35

Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.

Looking at it again, I think Sean must have mis-transcribed the SNP figure, since the total doesn't add up to enough seats. So scrub what I said in terms of the effect on Labour.

MarqueeMark

Plato said:

OT Is this the weirdest floral tribute? https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes/status/637266773167968257

It all kicks off at the wake, as his mates take exception to the hidden suggestion he was a fag...

isam

Seems as though the Virginia shooter was inspired by Militant Black Guy from Balls of Steel...

'We would say stuff like, ‘The reporter’s out in the field.’ And he would look at us and say, ‘What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist,’” said Fair.

"We’d be like, ‘What?’ We all know what that means, but he took it as cotton fields, and therefore we’re all racists."

Fair added that Flanagan was "management’s worst nightmare."

Flanagan also flew off the handle when one of his bosses brought in watermelon for the staff.

"Of course, he thought that was racist. He was like, ‘You’re doing that because of me.’ No, the general manager brought in watermelon for the entire news team. He’s like, ‘Nope, this is out for me. You guys are calling me out because I’m black.’" '

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/virginia-shootings-killer-vester-lee-flanagan-gunned-down-alison-parker-after-accusing-her-of-racism-a2922826.html

Sunil_Prasannan

isam said:

Seems as though the Virginia shooter was inspired by Militant Black Guy from Balls of Steel...

'We would say stuff like, ‘The reporter’s out in the field.’ And he would look at us and say, ‘What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist,’” said Fair.

"We’d be like, ‘What?’ We all know what that means, but he took it as cotton fields, and therefore we’re all racists."

Fair added that Flanagan was "management’s worst nightmare."

Flanagan also flew off the handle when one of his bosses brought in watermelon for the staff.

"Of course, he thought that was racist. He was like, ‘You’re doing that because of me.’ No, the general manager brought in watermelon for the entire news team. He’s like, ‘Nope, this is out for me. You guys are calling me out because I’m black.’" '

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/virginia-shootings-killer-vester-lee-flanagan-gunned-down-alison-parker-after-accusing-her-of-racism-a2922826.html

EDIT - Ooops, NSFW!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uTP1fdFu0c

CarlottaVance

Financier said:

Some interesting backgrounds here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11820890/The-five-pillars-of-Jeremy-Corbyns-bid-to-run-Britain.html

Fascinating!

Unlike the Telegraph to call someone sceptical of climate change a 'denier'! (Corbyn's 'Communist Weather Forecaster brother')

Plato

I wonder what they'll tweet https://twitter.com/SamHodges/status/637285050321633280

Plato

https://twitter.com/make_trouble/status/637285370707734530

flightpath01

foxinsoxuk said:

Plato said:

OT Is this the weirdest floral tribute? https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes/status/637266773167968257

Did he die of lung cancer?

lead poisoning.

OldKingCole

MarkHopkins said:

isam said:

Just heard that Theresa Gorman has died

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/former-tory-mp-teresa-gorman-dies-aged-83-11364000703482

RIP. Met her a few times, and she was always pleasant, although it was clear that politics were her life.

I didn't agree with those politics at all, but her support for womwn's health causes helped to bring several issues out of the shadows, and consequently did a lot of good.

malcolmg

kle4 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.

In that case, I predict an ABC victory. I'm usually wrong anyway, so no worries if JC does win, and what acclaim if I am 'right'.

He will skoosh it Kle4

malcolmg

Plato said:

I wonder what they'll tweet https://twitter.com/SamHodges/status/637285050321633280

This is what we are down to , right lads deploy twitter we are sure to force the blighters into submission.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35

Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.

Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)

No chance. The SNP are busy promising free money they don't actually have to raise.....Jerry, of Tom & Jerry, might actually have to try to explain where it comes from.....

More lies from you, can you show examples of where this free money has been promised other than in your fevered imagination.

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?

More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.

Pulpstar

Sub 1.3 for Jezbollah.

HurstLlama

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?

I would guess that UKIP are marking time but that is probably due to most people having switched off from politics rather than anything UKIP are doing or not doing.

That said, I detect a distinct lowering of enthusiasm amongst people that were until May quite fervent supporters. Again this may well be due to disinterest in politics generally but there is a feeling of we didn't break through so why bother. Such people are more likely to join the do not vote rather than vote for another party. However, if UKIP are sensible they would get out campaigning on local issues a much to keep their supporters motivated to do things as the need to keep the Party in the public's eye.

For example, supposing a person wearing UKIP badge takes the lead in getting the street lighting on an estate upgraded then come the council elections that person will have a pool of assured supporters and come the GE he/she is a community leader with, perhaps some influence.

OldKingCole

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?

More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.

Can you have things that are both sensible AND popular with the voters?

MarqueeMark

Plato said:

I wonder what they'll tweet https://twitter.com/SamHodges/status/637285050321633280

Guys - I've heard that Buddhists get 150 virgins...

malcolmg

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?

More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.

Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?

Tories do seem to manage some of that

ReggieCide

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

Yes, that's true. I also suspect their last winning formula 'We're as economically competent as the Tories, but a lot nicer' won't be seeing the light of day anytime soon.....

Labour's current track record on the avoidance of the flogging a dead horse is not that great, so we may yet see what you suspect we won't

flightpath01

john_zims said:

@MikeK

'I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever.
While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit. '

With UKIP's increased vote share in many Labour constituencies I would have thought that Paul Nuttall would be a better choice as leader and performs well on TV.

So UKIP are a socialist party then?
Or is it just that Nuttal is better at being a northerner than Burnham? How authentic is that?

OldKingCole

MarqueeMark said:

Plato said:

I wonder what they'll tweet https://twitter.com/SamHodges/status/637285050321633280

Guys - I've heard that Buddhists get 150 virgins...

That wouldn'y be all that easy in Thailand.

OldKingCole

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?

More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.

Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?

Tories do seem to manage some of that

Have you been at the "water of life"!

MarqueeMark

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Plato said:

I wonder what they'll tweet https://twitter.com/SamHodges/status/637285050321633280

Guys - I've heard that Buddhists get 150 virgins...

That wouldn'y be all that easy in Thailand.

SeanT has seen to that.... BUT Since when did Twitter tell the truth?

Plato

I think the Silly Season has generated work for idle Civil Service hands - first we had DCMS offering #Poohstick fun police guidance, and now this.

MarqueeMark said:

Plato said:

I wonder what they'll tweet https://twitter.com/SamHodges/status/637285050321633280

Guys - I've heard that Buddhists get 150 virgins...

JEO

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.

UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.

UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.

I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.

Having said that Labour haven't elected Corbyn yet, so most normal people don't know anything about it, and the Tories are still enjoying a post-election honeymoon. I think it's entirely accurate that UKIP bungled the post-election period, and are still failing to get in the news, but it's still very early in the day. I suspect that increased migration and the asylum crisis will naturally cause support to drift to them without them doing anything at all.

SouthamObserver

Pulpstar said:

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

Cons: 41
Lab: 26
LDs: 12
UKIP: 13
SNP: 5

Which, Baxtered, gives

Cons: 364
Lab: 195
LD: 8
UKIP: 1
SNP: 35

Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.

Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/united_kingdom/targets/lab

Not a chance Labour takes anything in Scotland past Edi South if they head back to 25%. And even that could look vulnerable.

The Scots have their left wing party, and whilst alot of new SNP voters may well give a sympathetic ear to Jezza they will vote SNP in the booth !

The SNP is not polling so high and winning elections because it is left wing. It is doing so because it is waving a Scottish flag in the faces of the Westminster parties. Jezza's red flag will never trump that.

ReggieCide

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.

Bigger fools than all the fools (including yours truly) who predicted a hung Parliament which at one point was trading around 1.05 just before the general election?

A good reminder that it doesn't always work out as expected.

What's most surprising is that the odds haven't collapsed down to something 1.05 or 1.1, given that virtually everyone is behaving as though it's a done deal.

I think everyone on both sides of the wishful thinking fence has a mindset of "it couldn't really happen, could it?" It's okay to be bold when it's not your cash involved

SimonStClare

The Oxford PPE student who bought the Corbyn Grail on Ebay for £51 has said he was just taking the p***”, and plans to use the sought after paper cup to “drink port out of whilst toasting the Queen.”

JEO

German minister proposes opening processing camp in Turkey.

http://www.euronews.com/2015/08/28/exclusive-eu-should-create-immigrant-processing-centre-in-turkey-says-german/

Finally, some sensible thinking about this.

Plato

More on the Mr Big funeral - it looks very strange - like a wedding with a coffin. White horses, a white carriage and white coffin. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214201/Wreaths-shaped-like-cannabis-leaves-armed-police-standby-Crowds-line-streets-Salford-s-assassinated-Mr-Big-Paul-Massey-laid-rest.html