Leeds NW is a classic example of a middle class urban seat which was once safe for the Conservatives but which has been shifting relentlessly leftwards over the course of a generation (Leeds NE is similar). I wouldn't be surprised at all if Labour took it next time. Leeds NE is now a very safe seat for Labour.
Jim Pickard Stears in NS on Corbyn-mania: "It is not what any of my political scientist colleagues would describe as "orthodox vote-seeking behaviour."
The Pope makes a speech in the White House..where he arrived by private jet..with his massive entourage...about climate change..The climate change which he claims is man made..The same Pope who exhorts the poorer people of the world to make more babies..What a Dork..
Just had a quick look at the impact of boundaries on the LDs' top 10 target seats:
Cambridge needs to lose 6-8k voters and it depends which ward is removed. Taking out Cherry Hinton would flip this back to the LDs but taking out Trumpington would increase Lab's majority
Eastbourne is likely to be no change.
Lewes - is likely to lose LD-friendly Newhaven to Brighton Kemptown and gain some unfriendly wards from Wealden district. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Thornbury - all the S Gloucestershire seats are undersized. At least 10k voters have to be added and the LDs did badly in both Filton and Kingswood. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Twickenham - is likely to be no change.
East Dunbartonshire needs to add 10k voters. The most likely additions would be the E Dunbartonshire wards in Cumbernauld. This would make it safer for the SNP
Kingston - is likely to be no change.
St Ives - needs 10k voters adding from the Camborne seat where the LDs did badly last time. Likely to make it safer for Con
Edinburgh W - needs a few k extra votes. Can be done by assigning split wards to this constituency. Marginally safer for the SNP
If the NHS has these details then, presumably, they have the details of the girls/women involved, the names of their parents, their home addresses etc. So why aren't the authorities taking steps such as, for instance, making those girls and any sisters wards of court, interviewing the parents about when/where the mutilation happened etc.
The point about collecting statistic, after all, s is not to collect them but to use them to take action. They are telling you a story and the story in this case is a horrible one.
The Pope makes a speech in the White House..where he arrived by private jet..with his massive entourage...about climate change..The climate change which he claims is man made..The same Pope who exhorts the poorer people of the world to make more babies..What a Dork..
The most popular argument for leaving the EU is that money spent on Europe could be better spent on British public services - ranks slightly ahead of controlling immigration. There's huge potential for the OUTers to weave an anti-austerity message into their pitch.
So, in summary, the net result is that the boundary review is probably going to mean that the LibDems start from a notional position which is 3 or 4 seats down on the current 8.
Just had a quick look at the impact of boundaries on the LDs' top 10 target seats:
Cambridge needs to lose 6-8k voters and it depends which ward is removed. Taking out Cherry Hinton would flip this back to the LDs but taking out Trumpington would increase Lab's majority
Eastbourne is likely to be no change.
Lewes - is likely to lose LD-friendly Newhaven to Brighton Kemptown and gain some unfriendly wards from Wealden district. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Thornbury - all the S Gloucestershire seats are undersized. At least 10k voters have to be added and the LDs did badly in both Filton and Kingswood. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Twickenham - is likely to be no change.
East Dunbartonshire needs to add 10k voters. The most likely additions would be the E Dunbartonshire wards in Cumbernauld. This would make it safer for the SNP
Kingston - is likely to be no change.
St Ives - needs 10k voters adding from the Camborne seat where the LDs did badly last time. Likely to make it safer for Con
Edinburgh W - needs a few k extra votes. Can be done by assigning split wards to this constituency. Marginally safer for the SNP
Torbay - is likely to be no change.
Won't all these (and the ones they already hold) be likely to be affected by the knock-on effects from other constituencies? So even if they don't need to change themselves, they could still end up doing so because of the needs of those next door or even further down the line?
'One can identify a Labour core vote; a Conservative core vote; even a UKIP core vote. But, I don't know what group can now be said to constitute the Lib Dem core vote.'
An interesting series of three tweets by Rafael Behr:
Criticism of Farron migration line based on distance from mainstream public opinion mistakes his strategy. He's pitching to people who feel like dissenters from mainstream on liberal issues like this. If Daily Mail does double-page spread attacking him as open-door, bleeding-heart, foreigner-loving softie, that's a comms win in his eyes.
I think that's right. Farron is not aiming for 25% or even 18%. He is seeing if he can take the LibDems from 8% to 12%. His actions need to be seen in that light.
Well he wont attract any ex BNPers , they have moved en block to UKIP ! Rather squeezes the LD's !
Just had a quick look at the impact of boundaries on the LDs' top 10 target seats:
Cambridge needs to lose 6-8k voters and it depends which ward is removed. Taking out Cherry Hinton would flip this back to the LDs but taking out Trumpington would increase Lab's majority
Eastbourne is likely to be no change.
Lewes - is likely to lose LD-friendly Newhaven to Brighton Kemptown and gain some unfriendly wards from Wealden district. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Thornbury - all the S Gloucestershire seats are undersized. At least 10k voters have to be added and the LDs did badly in both Filton and Kingswood. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Twickenham - is likely to be no change.
East Dunbartonshire needs to add 10k voters. The most likely additions would be the E Dunbartonshire wards in Cumbernauld. This would make it safer for the SNP
Kingston - is likely to be no change.
St Ives - needs 10k voters adding from the Camborne seat where the LDs did badly last time. Likely to make it safer for Con
Edinburgh W - needs a few k extra votes. Can be done by assigning split wards to this constituency. Marginally safer for the SNP
Torbay - is likely to be no change.
Won't all these (and the ones they already hold) be likely to be affected by the knock-on effects from other constituencies? So even if they don't need to change themselves, they could still end up doing so because of the needs of those next door or even further down the line?
I suppose that is definitely possible in London. There should be a lot less change in the South outside of London as in many areas most of the constituencies are the right size e.g. Berkshire and Surrey will probably see negligible change.
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Following on from my last post, quite a lot of seats have moved Leftwards since 1992. The Conservatives have lost 10 seats in Scotland. Edmonton, Ilford North and South, Enfield North, Croydon North, Mitcham & Morden, Ealing Acton, Brentford & Isleworth, Hayes & Harlington, Harrow West, Brent North, Westminster North, Eltham, Chorley, Lancashire West, Leeds NE and NW, Sheffield Hallam, Bristol West, Chester, Bury South, Bolton NE, Birmingham Edgbaston, Hall Green, Yardley, Brighton Pavilion, Hove, Lancaster & Fleetwood, Dewsbury, Luton North & South, Slough, Southampton Test, Gedling, Exeter, Tynemouth, Wirral South, Wirral West, Blackpool South, Southport, Crosby, Middlesborough South, Wolverhampton SW have all gone, some beyond recovery. That's 53 seats.
In addition, seats like Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield Southgate, Harrow East, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green are much more marginal than they used to be.
So, how are the Conservatives only down 5 seats on 1992? They've won a handful that were held by the Lib Dems and Labour, but mostly their gains are driven by population increase in Conservative-voting areas creating new constituencies, while population falls (or stagnation) are cutting the numbers of seats in left-wing areas.
The most popular argument for leaving the EU is that money spent on Europe could be better spent on British public services - ranks slightly ahead of controlling immigration. There's huge potential for the OUTers to weave an anti-austerity message into their pitch.
I also note that Leave leads among Conservatives. If dishonest Remain arguments are used, or ones that unravel after the referendum, it will destroy the party.
It's also interesting that the soft Remain group find leave arguments much more convincing than the soft Leave group find remain arguments.
This will be a very fine run thing.
An excellent set of polling questions though. Well done YouGov.
Following on from my last post, quite a lot of seats have moved Leftwards since 1992. The Conservatives have lost 10 seats in Scotland. Edmonton, Ilford North and South, Enfield North, Croydon North, Mitcham & Morden, Ealing Acton, Brentford & Isleworth, Hayes & Harlington, Harrow West, Brent North, Westminster North, Eltham, Chorley, Lancashire West, Leeds NE and NW, Sheffield Hallam, Bristol West, Chester, Bury South, Bolton NE, Birmingham Edgbaston, Hall Green, Yardley, Brighton Pavilion, Hove, Lancaster & Fleetwood, Dewsbury, Luton North & South, Slough, Southampton Test, Gedling, Exeter, Tynemouth, Wirral South, Wirral West, Blackpool South, Southport, Crosby, Middlesborough South, Wolverhampton SW have all gone, some beyond recovery. That's 53 seats.
In addition, seats like Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield Southgate, Harrow East, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green are much more marginal than they used to be.
So, how are the Conservatives only down 5 seats on 1992? They've won a handful that were held by the Lib Dems and Labour, but mostly their gains are driven by population increase in Conservative-voting areas creating new constituencies, while population falls (or stagnation) are cutting the numbers of seats in left-wing areas.
Is that the same as saying that seats are changing hands because of population movements rather than existing populations changing their minds about who they prefer? If so you need to be careful about about posting stuff like that on here because it comes close to saying *looks around to see who is listening and then whispers*, "white flight".
Leeds NW is a classic example of a middle class urban seat which was once safe for the Conservatives but which has been shifting relentlessly leftwards over the course of a generation (Leeds NE is similar). I wouldn't be surprised at all if Labour took it next time. Leeds NE is now a very safe seat for Labour.
lt has one of the biggest student populations in the country; over a quarter of the electorate...
If mandatory reselection goes through it will send signal even Tom Watson can't mitigate Corbynite excesses, and that will be a big deal...
I am sure that loyal, hard-working MPs will see this as nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise.
The idea from some of these Labour MPs that they have a divine right to remain an MP forevermore without any accountability to activists is baffling.
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would want my MP to be deselected if he started routinely voting with the Tories on things like Syria, welfare, etc.
I'm not a better, and I haven't really considered this before. However that seems both simple and, as you say, shrewd. An upset/shock creates stories and hype, meaning people will jump in on the side that caused the shock in the next game. However the story is because it is a shock and against usual form. The value is then in opposing what most others are doing and go for the team that you'd usually expect to win.
Nice core vote speech...shame the core vote is only 5% or so
One can identify a Labour core vote; a Conservative core vote; even a UKIP core vote. But, I don't know what group can now be said to constitute the Lib Dem core vote.
The only problem the Liberal Democrats have is that they don't really stand up for their signature issue: liberalism. As Farron said today, he seems to think liberalism is being "open", "united", "inclusive", and otherwise nice to people.
That's not what liberalism is. Liberalism is believing in free speech, democratic governance, the rule of law, the free press and free markets. When was the last time we heard the Liberal Democrats stand up against encroachments against any of those?
Total agree,
Liberal means: 'of and pertaining to Freedom' and that means standing up for freedom min all its forms social and economic, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom of contracture, and so on. It means the government stepping back and not trying to compel somebody to do or not to do something.
some of these things can appear to have some negative first order down sides, free speech means that other people have the right to say things that may offend or upset us, and so on. but A liberal thinks that this is a price worth paying becomes it is much better than starting down a slippery slope to authoritarianism. And prevents the government from being a tool that can be captured (metaphorically) and be used to protect, and expand the interests of a special interests.
Some were along the line, the word has been twisted and now the LD and people who clame to be liberal, don't seem to understand what it means, and there for can not stand up for it.
In many cases real liberals are rationale, and compassionate, and make there arguments case by case. Perhaps this has attracted other people who may agree on one or to things, normally legalisation of drugs, but who don't take the time to understand the philosophy, and think that liberalism just means being 'nice'. as a result they bring there other prejudices and 'do gooding authoritarian streak' with them in to a movement where they should not be.
While the Orange Book LD seemed to be returning to real liberalism, I'm not shore they are driving the party any more.
The only problem the Liberal Democrats have is that they don't really stand up for their signature issue: liberalism. As Farron said today, he seems to think liberalism is being "open", "united", "inclusive", and otherwise nice to people.
That's not what liberalism is. Liberalism is believing in free speech, democratic governance, the rule of law, the free press and free markets. When was the last time we heard the Liberal Democrats stand up against encroachments against any of those?
Total agree,
Liberal means: 'of and pertaining to Freedom' and that means standing up for freedom min all its forms social and economic, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom of contracture, and so on. It means the government stepping back and not trying to compel somebody to do or not to do something.
some of these things can appear to have some negative first order down sides, free speech means that other people have the right to say things that may offend or upset us, and so on. but A liberal thinks that this is a price worth paying becomes it is much better than starting down a slippery slope to authoritarianism. And prevents the government from being a tool that can be captured (metaphorically) and be used to protect, and expand the interests of a special interests.
Some were along the line, the word has been twisted and now the LD and people who clame to be liberal, don't seem to understand what it means, and there for can not stand up for it.
In many cases real liberals are rationale, and compassionate, and make there arguments case by case. Perhaps this has attracted other people who may agree on one or to things, normally legalisation of drugs, but who don't take the time to understand the philosophy, and think that liberalism just means being 'nice'. as a result they bring there other prejudices and 'do gooding authoritarian streak' with them in to a movement where they should not be.
While the Orange Book LD seemed to be returning to real liberalism, I'm not shore they are driving the party any more.
I should be a Liberal. I can't be a Liberal Democrat; they're like Labour; mis-named.
Just had a quick look at the impact of boundaries on the LDs' top 10 target seats:
Cambridge needs to lose 6-8k voters and it depends which ward is removed. Taking out Cherry Hinton would flip this back to the LDs but taking out Trumpington would increase Lab's majority
Eastbourne is likely to be no change.
Lewes - is likely to lose LD-friendly Newhaven to Brighton Kemptown and gain some unfriendly wards from Wealden district. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Thornbury - all the S Gloucestershire seats are undersized. At least 10k voters have to be added and the LDs did badly in both Filton and Kingswood. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Twickenham - is likely to be no change.
East Dunbartonshire needs to add 10k voters. The most likely additions would be the E Dunbartonshire wards in Cumbernauld. This would make it safer for the SNP
Kingston - is likely to be no change.
St Ives - needs 10k voters adding from the Camborne seat where the LDs did badly last time. Likely to make it safer for Con
Edinburgh W - needs a few k extra votes. Can be done by assigning split wards to this constituency. Marginally safer for the SNP
Torbay - is likely to be no change.
A bigger electorate always makes it harder for smaller parties to defeat the two big parties.
This because the default is for voters to vote for one of the two big parties and smaller parties have to work extra hard to establish a big enough position to get a majority. Where the two big parties have similar support is the best chance for a smaller party to sneak in.
Comments
Jim Pickard
Stears in NS on Corbyn-mania: "It is not what any of my political scientist colleagues would describe as "orthodox vote-seeking behaviour."
Lucky Robinson has already resigned as FM?
Press Association
Over 1,000 women recorded having their genitals mutilated in three months, NHS figures show http://t.co/UodZg08emZ http://t.co/g6ySKm74nm
Cambridge needs to lose 6-8k voters and it depends which ward is removed. Taking out Cherry Hinton would flip this back to the LDs but taking out Trumpington would increase Lab's majority
Eastbourne is likely to be no change.
Lewes - is likely to lose LD-friendly Newhaven to Brighton Kemptown and gain some unfriendly wards from Wealden district. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Thornbury - all the S Gloucestershire seats are undersized. At least 10k voters have to be added and the LDs did badly in both Filton and Kingswood. This is likely to increase the Con maj
Twickenham - is likely to be no change.
East Dunbartonshire needs to add 10k voters. The most likely additions would be the E Dunbartonshire wards in Cumbernauld. This would make it safer for the SNP
Kingston - is likely to be no change.
St Ives - needs 10k voters adding from the Camborne seat where the LDs did badly last time. Likely to make it safer for Con
Edinburgh W - needs a few k extra votes. Can be done by assigning split wards to this constituency. Marginally safer for the SNP
Torbay - is likely to be no change.
The point about collecting statistic, after all, s is not to collect them but to use them to take action. They are telling you a story and the story in this case is a horrible one.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/22/eu-referendum-state-public-opinion/
The most popular argument for leaving the EU is that money spent on Europe could be better spent on British public services - ranks slightly ahead of controlling immigration. There's huge potential for the OUTers to weave an anti-austerity message into their pitch.
So, in summary, the net result is that the boundary review is probably going to mean that the LibDems start from a notional position which is 3 or 4 seats down on the current 8.
'One can identify a Labour core vote; a Conservative core vote; even a UKIP core vote. But, I don't know what group can now be said to constitute the Lib Dem core vote.'
The activists in the hall in Bournemouth ?
https://twitter.com/brucemillington/status/646662735023992832
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-for-hillary-clinton-in-bloombergs-new-poll/
In addition, seats like Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield Southgate, Harrow East, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green are much more marginal than they used to be.
So, how are the Conservatives only down 5 seats on 1992? They've won a handful that were held by the Lib Dems and Labour, but mostly their gains are driven by population increase in Conservative-voting areas creating new constituencies, while population falls (or stagnation) are cutting the numbers of seats in left-wing areas.
It's also interesting that the soft Remain group find leave arguments much more convincing than the soft Leave group find remain arguments.
This will be a very fine run thing.
An excellent set of polling questions though. Well done YouGov.
If mandatory reselection goes through it will send signal even Tom Watson can't mitigate Corbynite excesses, and that will be a big deal...
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would want my MP to be deselected if he started routinely voting with the Tories on things like Syria, welfare, etc.
Is that right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34340997
Liberal means: 'of and pertaining to Freedom' and that means standing up for freedom min all its forms social and economic, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom of contracture, and so on. It means the government stepping back and not trying to compel somebody to do or not to do something.
some of these things can appear to have some negative first order down sides, free speech means that other people have the right to say things that may offend or upset us, and so on. but A liberal thinks that this is a price worth paying becomes it is much better than starting down a slippery slope to authoritarianism. And prevents the government from being a tool that can be captured (metaphorically) and be used to protect, and expand the interests of a special interests.
Some were along the line, the word has been twisted and now the LD and people who clame to be liberal, don't seem to understand what it means, and there for can not stand up for it.
In many cases real liberals are rationale, and compassionate, and make there arguments case by case. Perhaps this has attracted other people who may agree on one or to things, normally legalisation of drugs, but who don't take the time to understand the philosophy, and think that liberalism just means being 'nice'. as a result they bring there other prejudices and 'do gooding authoritarian streak' with them in to a movement where they should not be.
While the Orange Book LD seemed to be returning to real liberalism, I'm not shore they are driving the party any more.
This because the default is for voters to vote for one of the two big parties and smaller parties have to work extra hard to establish a big enough position to get a majority. Where the two big parties have similar support is the best chance for a smaller party to sneak in.