The serious concern is whether voters are reliving 2010-15: willing to back Labour at elections where the government of the country is not at stake but intent on withholding that mandate when it really matters. The suspicion has to be that they did well despite Corbyn.
Quite possibly, however even if it is reliving 2010-15, it seems to have been forgotten that the 2010-15 experience was barely enough for the Tories to scrape over the line last year.
Quite why they still seem to think they're on course for a landslide win in 2020, when they're currently running slightly behind their progress at this point of the last parliament, is beyond me.
"A London Elects spokesman told the Mirror’s Michael Pearson there have been 'small discrepancies within the electoral figures', and they are working with the Electoral Commission to resolve them."
?
PS Has the chief rabbi managed to vote? He reportedly couldn't, because of the mix-up in Barnet.
"The serious concern is whether voters are reliving 2010-15: willing to back Labour at elections where the government of the country is not at stake but intent on withholding that mandate when it really matters." Strange thing to say about Labour's performance in a Scottish general election! But if "the country" means Britain, I think you're right. Some SNP supporters have still got referendum fever, and Tories always vote, so Labour got hit most by people staying at home.
"A London Elects spokesman told the Mirror’s Michael Pearson there have been 'small discrepancies within the electoral figures', and they are working with the Electoral Commission to resolve them."
?
PS Has the chief rabbi managed to vote? He reportedly couldn't, because of the mix-up in Barnet.
Why don't they just count them by hand god- machines don't always save time- Hanging Chads possible ?
We nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership. Now we regret it The elections were a missed opportunity for Labour. As new MPs we’ve kept quiet, but now we’re speaking out about weak leadership and poor judgment
Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw 30m30 minutes ago @jreedmp would that be the New Labour under Tony Blair that won record number of seats in, er, Scotland? 25 retweets 33 likes
Jamie Reed @jreedmp 27m27 minutes ago @BenPBradshaw The very same. But we're not geniuses.
"A London Elects spokesman told the Mirror’s Michael Pearson there have been 'small discrepancies within the electoral figures', and they are working with the Electoral Commission to resolve them."
?
PS Has the chief rabbi managed to vote? He reportedly couldn't, because of the mix-up in Barnet.
Why don't they just count them by hand god- machines don't always save time- Hanging Chads possible ?
London always takes absolutely forever to count. If they had started by hand right after polls close, we'd have had the declaration early this morning.
Quite possibly, however even if it is reliving 2010-15, it seems to have been forgotten that the 2010-15 experience was barely enough for the Tories to scrape over the line last year.
Quite why they still seem to think they're on course for a landslide win in 2020, when they're currently running slightly behind their progress at this point of the last parliament, is beyond me.
There are Conservatives who seem to think Corbyn is a piñata who will deliver a majority for them no matter what they do. Imo Corbyn is a huge electoral liability for Labour but only if the Conservatives exploit him by choosing a voter-friendly successor to Cameron and seeming vaguely competent. Of course, Labour should assume that is exactly what the Tories will do.
We nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership. Now we regret it The elections were a missed opportunity for Labour. As new MPs we’ve kept quiet, but now we’re speaking out about weak leadership and poor judgment
Red Tories.... they can safely be ignored by the true pure reds. Things are okeydokeymateyblokey. Same goes with bradshaw and reed picking on prospective chancellor burgon.
"A London Elects spokesman told the Mirror’s Michael Pearson there have been 'small discrepancies within the electoral figures', and they are working with the Electoral Commission to resolve them."
?
PS Has the chief rabbi managed to vote? He reportedly couldn't, because of the mix-up in Barnet.
Why don't they just count them by hand god- machines don't always save time- Hanging Chads possible ?
That's what I was thinking, with Barnet standing in for Miami! Whatever they're doing, as far as I know they haven't called it a "recount". I wonder if the contracts will allow scrutiny of the software this time - or will there be a Diebold angle? It's extraordinary that one candidate has more or less claimed victory but the other has yet to cede it.
"A London Elects spokesman told the Mirror’s Michael Pearson there have been 'small discrepancies within the electoral figures', and they are working with the Electoral Commission to resolve them."
?
PS Has the chief rabbi managed to vote? He reportedly couldn't, because of the mix-up in Barnet.
Why don't they just count them by hand god- machines don't always save time- Hanging Chads possible ?
London always takes absolutely forever to count. If they had started by hand right after polls close, we'd have had the declaration early this morning.
Must be about 8 hours ago we were told the declaration was in 15 minutes...
Why don't they just admit the machines have broken down?
A fair summary, but it's perhaps worth noting that the theory that young voters don't vote may have been dented - certainly I found a lot of people in the 18-30 range who said they'd voted, and some quoted the Corbyn factor (admittedly in his own constituency, but the high London turnout suggests it may be wider). That (if confimed) has implications both for the referendum and for Labour's chances.
I see Gove has ruled himself out of the Tory leadership contest, removing the fairly obvious option of a May-Gove contest. It's hard to see a contest without a Leave supporter, so perhaps that gives Bois a shot after all. What other prominent Leave Tories might stand and get enough nominatios?
It's hard to see a contest without a Leave supporter, so perhaps that gives Bois a shot after all. What other prominent Leave Tories might stand and get enough nominatios?
Are people assuming David Davis won't get the nominations? His ego will surely compel him to try again.
In 1992 and 1987 almost every London constituency declared its result within about 5 hours of the polls closing. Not sure why the machines are necessary.
Thankfully the man managed to escape from the pile of cheese with his life. For some reason the story reminds me of the Great Molasses Flood of 1919 which sadly cost 21 people their lives.
In 1992 and 1987 almost every London constituency declared its result within about 5 hours of the polls closing. Not sure why the machines are necessary.
A fair summary, but it's perhaps worth noting that the theory that young voters don't vote may have been dented - certainly I found a lot of people in the 18-30 range who said they'd voted, and some quoted the Corbyn factor (admittedly in his own constituency, but the high London turnout suggests it may be wider). That (if confimed) has implications both for the referendum and for Labour's chances.
I see Gove has ruled himself out of the Tory leadership contest, removing the fairly obvious option of a May-Gove contest. It's hard to see a contest without a Leave supporter, so perhaps that gives Bois a shot after all. What other prominent Leave Tories might stand and get enough nominatios?
Didn't you also have a dream in which an unending river of young people marched towards the sunrise singing the Internationale? If confirmed, that has implications for Labour's chances.
"Even better – indeed, beyond most Tory activists’ wildest dreams – were the 31 MSPs returned to Holyrood: those ‘Tory Surge’ klaxons weren’t picking up false readings, after all."
Waited over a decade to finally see a PB article confirming a Tory surge in Scotland.
"... Conservatives exploit him by choosing a voter-friendly successor to Cameron and seeming vaguely competent..."
Both maybe beyond the Current Conservative Party (especially if there is a recession between now and 2020). However, I still can't see Corbyn winning even if the Conservatives elect Jabba the Hut as their next leader and keep Osborne as CoE.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
If seats were proportional to votes, the SNP would have fewer seats than the total for the three main unionist parties, and they wouldn't be able to form a majority even with Green support.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
I think that would be classed as a "superb" result, going on the scale of superlatives used prior to indyref.
On UKIP and Wales, you're wrong about Hamilton, he was born in Wales and went to Aberystwyth University, he is Welsh and has at least some kind of claim to a list seat there. Reckless, otoh, should have been told by the leadership to do one and find a council seat in the South East or London and waited for a by-election for Westminster or waited until the GE 2020 to try again. Stuffing the Welsh assembly with English party hacks is pretty disgraceful, but I expect it from a party as unprofessional as UKIP and a leader desperate to give those who keep him in place favours.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit. The SNP fell back on the lists as some too-clever people voted tactically for the Greens, who together control the pro-independence majority. As for the constituencies you can only win with what you have; if your opponents decide to tactically coalesce, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that. It's not any party's job to discredit another party to help a third.
It is also a great result because it protects them from the obligation of a too-soon independence vote, while allowing them to respond to public demand for a referendum, if it bubbles up with the support the Greens or even other parties.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
If seats were proportional to votes, the SNP would have fewer seats than the total for the three main unionist parties, and they wouldn't be able to form a majority even with Green support.
And you would have the biggest SNP majority ever at the next election. One may have noticed in recent years that any British party which coalesces with Tories gets crucified. The Lib Dems are still totalled and UUP is barely in the recovery stage.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit.
Cameron gained a majority for his party after not having one; he didn't have one and then lose it, as the SNP has just done.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit. The SNP fell back on the lists as some too-clever people voted tactically for the Greens, who together control the pro-independence majority. As for the constituencies you can only win with what you have; if your opponents decide to tactically coalesce, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that. It's not any party's job to discredit another party to help a third.
It is also a great result because it protects them from the obligation of a too-soon independence vote, while allowing them to respond to public demand for a referendum, if it bubbles up with the support the Greens or even other parties.
Of course it's a good result, but a bit lower than expectations, no?
Anyway, it all comes down to the meme of Nats always say everything is an amazing result, no matter what the actual result is.
David H 'The disaster was Scotland, where Labour finished behind the Conservatives for the first time since the 1950s '
I am not really wishing to quibble but I am pretty sure the Tories beat Labour in Scotland in the Local Elections of 1968 and 1969 . Labour lost Glasgow in those years!
Jeb Bush will not vote for Trump or Clinton 'I congratulate Donald Trump on securing his place as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. There is no doubt that he successfully tapped into the deep sense of anger and frustration so many Americans around the country rightfully feel today.
The tremendous anger of the current U.S. electorate – whether Republican, Democrat or independent – is a result of people fearful about the future, concerned with the direction of our country and tremendously frustrated by the abject failure and inability of leaders in Washington, D.C. to make anything better.
American voters have made it clear that Washington is broken, but I’m not optimistic that either of the leading candidates for President will put us on a better course.
The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.
Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama.
In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress.' https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/posts/876702172458827
Jeb Bush will not vote for Trump or Clinton 'I congratulate Donald Trump on securing his place as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. There is no doubt that he successfully tapped into the deep sense of anger and frustration so many Americans around the country rightfully feel today.
The tremendous anger of the current U.S. electorate – whether Republican, Democrat or independent – is a result of people fearful about the future, concerned with the direction of our country and tremendously frustrated by the abject failure and inability of leaders in Washington, D.C. to make anything better.
American voters have made it clear that Washington is broken, but I’m not optimistic that either of the leading candidates for President will put us on a better course.
The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.
Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama.
In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress.' https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/posts/876702172458827
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit.
Cameron gained a majority for his party after not having one; he didn't have one and then lose it, as the SNP has just done.
Cameron won 37 per cent under FPTP and got a majority. The SNP won 42 per cent in a PR system and didn't. The latter outcome seems fair to me. FPTP is like playing politics on easy mode for the biggest party. This line of criticism is like the top manager in the Isthmian League critiquing Spurs for not winning the Premiership.
Jeb Bush will not vote for Trump or Clinton 'I congratulate Donald Trump on securing his place as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. There is no doubt that he successfully tapped into the deep sense of anger and frustration so many Americans around the country rightfully feel today.
The tremendous anger of the current U.S. electorate – whether Republican, Democrat or independent – is a result of people fearful about the future, concerned with the direction of our country and tremendously frustrated by the abject failure and inability of leaders in Washington, D.C. to make anything better.
American voters have made it clear that Washington is broken, but I’m not optimistic that either of the leading candidates for President will put us on a better course.
The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.
Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama.
In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress.' https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/posts/876702172458827
That's a lot of words to say Sore Loser
It seems half the GOP establishment have thrown their toys out the pram, the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Paul etc
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit.
Cameron gained a majority for his party after not having one; he didn't have one and then lose it, as the SNP has just done.
Cameron won 37 per cent under FPTP and got a majority. The SNP won 42 per cent in a PR system and didn't. The latter outcome seems fair to me. FPTP is like playing politics on easy mode for the biggest party. This line of criticism is like the top manager in the Isthmian League critiquing Spurs for not winning the Premiership.
No it's not. John's point was that going from majority to not having a majority probably shouldn't be classed as a great result. It totally devalues the word great!
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit.
Cameron gained a majority for his party after not having one; he didn't have one and then lose it, as the SNP has just done.
Cameron won 37 per cent under FPTP and got a majority. The SNP won 42 per cent in a PR system and didn't. The latter outcome seems fair to me. FPTP is like playing politics on easy mode for the biggest party. This line of criticism is like the top manager in the Isthmian League critiquing Spurs for not winning the Premiership.
No it's not. John's point was that going from majority to not having a majority probably shouldn't be classed as a great result. It totally devalues the word great!
42 percent is a great result. It is up there with Thatcher and Blair - and they had FPTP on their side. The relevant FPTP figure is, I guess, the constituency vote of 47 per cent, which was not heard of at national level for 50 years. But it's a PR system and 42 is the relevant number. And it protects them from sole responsibility for the second independence referendum, which is the most important decision coming up in the next parliament. 5 days ago, the London hacks were delighted that the SNP would have to call a referendum. Now, they're delighted that the SNP can't call a referendum. Meh. However, I think the hacks have a point. Observe that attempting to fulfil the Conservative manifesto has led to pain after pain for them. Today, academies. Well, that was a few months of pain they didn't need.
If Corbyn got 42, can you imagine the bloodbath on here? If Cameron got 42, there would be ... well, nowadays, maybe a bloodbath on here too.
Jeb Bush will not vote for Trump or Clinton 'I congratulate Donald Trump on securing his place as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. There is no doubt that he successfully tapped into the deep sense of anger and frustration so many Americans around the country rightfully feel today.
The tremendous anger of the current U.S. electorate – whether Republican, Democrat or independent – is a result of people fearful about the future, concerned with the direction of our country and tremendously frustrated by the abject failure and inability of leaders in Washington, D.C. to make anything better.
American voters have made it clear that Washington is broken, but I’m not optimistic that either of the leading candidates for President will put us on a better course.
The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.
Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama.
In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress.' https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/posts/876702172458827
That's a lot of words to say Sore Loser
or he wants another shot at it when/if the party comes to its senses?
Jeb Bush will not vote for Trump or Clinton 'I congratulate Donald Trump on securing his place as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. There is no doubt that he successfully tapped into the deep sense of anger and frustration so many Americans around the country rightfully feel today.
The tremendous anger of the current U.S. electorate – whether Republican, Democrat or independent – is a result of people fearful about the future, concerned with the direction of our country and tremendously frustrated by the abject failure and inability of leaders in Washington, D.C. to make anything better.
American voters have made it clear that Washington is broken, but I’m not optimistic that either of the leading candidates for President will put us on a better course.
The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.
Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama.
In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress.' https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/posts/876702172458827
That's a lot of words to say Sore Loser
It sounds like Jeb thinks that the US should be a monarchy with the Bushes as the Royal Family.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit. The SNP fell back on the lists as some too-clever people voted tactically for the Greens, who together control the pro-independence majority. As for the constituencies you can only win with what you have; if your opponents decide to tactically coalesce, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that. It's not any party's job to discredit another party to help a third.
It is also a great result because it protects them from the obligation of a too-soon independence vote, while allowing them to respond to public demand for a referendum, if it bubbles up with the support the Greens or even other parties.
Of course it's a good result, but a bit lower than expectations, no?
Anyway, it all comes down to the meme of Nats always say everything is an amazing result, no matter what the actual result is.
Wasn't the received wisdom that the SNP would get somewhere between 70 - 75 seats?
Re- Scotland – Labour performed badly but at the same time slightly exceeded expectations. Their constituency vote share was at the high end of forecasts and the general assumption was that they would end up with no constituency seats at all. In the event, they managed to win three – compared with just one at the 2015 General Election. Of course, the Tory outperformance was much more striking, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that had this week seen a Westminster Election – rather than for Holyrood – Labour would have reached 25% with the SNP on circa 45%. That would still have been a big SNP win – but also a step backwards from 2015 when they polled 49% to Labours 24%
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit. The SNP fell back on the lists as some too-clever people voted tactically for the Greens, who together control the pro-independence majority. As for the constituencies you can only win with what you have; if your opponents decide to tactically coalesce, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that. It's not any party's job to discredit another party to help a third.
It is also a great result because it protects them from the obligation of a too-soon independence vote, while allowing them to respond to public demand for a referendum, if it bubbles up with the support the Greens or even other parties.
Of course it's a good result, but a bit lower than expectations, no?
Anyway, it all comes down to the meme of Nats always say everything is an amazing result, no matter what the actual result is.
Wasn't the received wisdom that the SNP would get somewhere between 70 - 75 seats?
And now 63 is a great result....
Who buys the received wisdom these days? A political bettor who naively buys the received wisdom will tend to lose money in the long term. 42 per cent of the vote and a near-majority position is a great result. Any party in Europe would kill for 42 per cent. I think the PB conventional wisdom here is that 20 odd per cent is somehow a great result but that 42 per cent is a bad result.
Bit odd that no-one else wanted to speak apart from Khan and Goldsmith.
It may be that they had been told, or agreed, not to. It often depends on the Returning Officer. For example, whjen I stood in the by-election in Bromley & Chislehurst in 2006, we were all allowed to make speeches but were were told to limit ourselves to one minute each. In Ealing Southall in 2007, only the winner was allowed to make a speech (to be fair, we were told that right at the beginning of the campaign). In Croydon North in 2012, we were told that only the top two could make a speech (because they were the only ones with a significant share of the vote). On that occasion, the R.O. sprung it on us as an ad-hoc decision.
In itself that's probably so, but does he really want the gig for another four years ..... that's really the key question? Watching him take it in spades from Dave at PMQs last Wednesday, the answer to that is probably almost certainly no. Plus you'd have to wonder whether and at his age he's physically and mentally tough enough to stand up to the job. If I were a betting man, *cough*, my money would definitely be on him being gone well before May 2020 which must seem an eternity away for him if he's not enjoying being LotO which I suspect is probably the case. I've backed him with SkyBET to go in either 2018 at 10/1 (staking 54.2%) or in 2019 at 12/1 (staking 45.8%) to return combined odds of 4.95/1 should he leave office over this two year stretch, which is when the real pressure from within his party as well as from the unions is likely to be applied should he not be cutting it.
Great result for Nicola Sturgeon. The adults in the SNP room seem very happy; ignore cybernats as they are unrepresentative like PB Tory rampers (Mayor Zac too close to call). She can call an independence referendum if it's popular. And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties. What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
A great result for a party to lose their majority? Will the SNP describe it as a great result if the Tories just fall short of a majority at the next general election?
Yeah, it is a great result. Any party would be happy with 47 per cent of the constituency vote or 42 per cent of a PR vote. That's just a remarkable figure. Imagine if Cameron got 42 per cent even just in FPTP with its bias toward tactical votes for larger parties. They'd be begging him to stay instead of preparing his exit. The SNP fell back on the lists as some too-clever people voted tactically for the Greens, who together control the pro-independence majority. As for the constituencies you can only win with what you have; if your opponents decide to tactically coalesce, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that. It's not any party's job to discredit another party to help a third.
It is also a great result because it protects them from the obligation of a too-soon independence vote, while allowing them to respond to public demand for a referendum, if it bubbles up with the support the Greens or even other parties.
Of course it's a good result, but a bit lower than expectations, no?
Anyway, it all comes down to the meme of Nats always say everything is an amazing result, no matter what the actual result is.
Wasn't the received wisdom that the SNP would get somewhere between 70 - 75 seats?
And now 63 is a great result....
Who buys the received wisdom these days? A political bettor who naively buys the received wisdom will tend to lose money in the long term. 42 per cent of the vote and a near-majority position is a great result. Any party in Europe would kill for 42 per cent. I think the PB conventional wisdom here is that 20 odd per cent is somehow a great result but that 42 per cent is a bad result.
You're just feeding the meme that Nats think every result is great.
20% is great for the Tories given their near extinction in Scotland. 42% is not great (still good mind you) for the SNP as they have lost their majority, against expectations.
It's probably as well as well that we dispense with all the pressing political issues on this thread, so that we can then get on with the real issue of the day ....... Eurovision !
It's probably as well as well that we dispense with all the pressing political issues on this thread, so that we can then get on with the real issue of the day ....... Eurovision !
Oops, scrub that ...... I now realise that Eurovision is actually NEXT Saturday! Based on the blanket coverage given over to the contest on Oddschecker, I has assumed it was taking place tonight ..... WRONG. Oh well, back to Khan, Goldsmith, etc ..... yawn.
It's probably as well as well that we dispense with all the pressing political issues on this thread, so that we can then get on with the real issue of the day ....... Eurovision !
Oops, scrub that ...... I now realise that Eurovision is actually NEXT Saturday! Based on the blanket coverage given over to the contest on Oddschecker, I has assumed it was taking place tonight ..... WRONG. Oh well, back to Khan, Goldsmith, etc ..... yawn.
at the end of this campaign, presidential but curiously low key, this result still feels like a bitter defeat. And not just because the SNP’s precious majority has been lost; far worse, a campaign carefully honed to focus almost entirely on the personality of the leader, did not achieve its target.
Where Alex Salmond succeeded, Ms Sturgeon has failed.
Yesterday’s outcome was a personal disaster for the first minister and for John Swinney, her campaign manager. Their presidential strategy, driven by a fierce belief in the power of social media, had at its core an emptiness that lost the party its decisive advantage.
Yet, for all their 115,000, the street campaigning and the stylish gimmicks, only half of the electorate voted; of those, half again voted for her party — or just a quarter of the electorate were prepared to support the SNP.
I think you have it right. The d'Hondt AMS second vote system throws up plenty of curved balls but should not be mistaken for real support. The big blunder by the SNP was to allow the belief (aided and abetted by an unlikely and unholly alliance between the mainstream media, leftist commentators and St John Curtice) that they were home and dry on the constituencies leading to tactical voting for the Greens which then cost them dear on the lists. For all that the Nats comfortably topped every second vote regional poll across the country, even if they received virtually nothing for it.
That was careless by the SNP given there previous success under Salmond of defining the second vote as one for First Minister in 2007 and 2011. The Tories copied this tactic by presenting the list vote as one to choose the leader of the opposition. The failure to define the second vote other than to parrot "both votes SNP" should lead to substantial soul searching in SNP HQ. It is a sign that they need to strengthen their backroom team whose previous excellence under Kevin Pringle and Geoff Aberdein was at the heart of the Salmond led breakthrough. .
However the votes that reflect real political strength are in the constituency and here the SNP are at 47%, Labour at 22% and the Tories at 21%. In just about every other political system in the world that would produce a full majority government and is a remarkable declaration of support given that the NATS have been in power for nine years.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
The SNP has turned into SLab, a Glasgow centred machine of mediocrities.
A cult of personality only works when the personality doesn't alienate more than half the country...
And now the separatists are left, like the Japanese after WW2, with a few combatants out in the jungle, desperately unaware that the war is over. And they lost.
The SNP has turned into SLab, a Glasgow centred machine of mediocrities.
A cult of personality only works when the personality doesn't alienate more than half the country...
And now the separatists are left, like the Japanese after WW2, with a few combatants out in the jungle, desperately unaware that the war is over. And they lost.
Sturgeon's night of triumph turned sour immediately with the overwhelming Orkney rejection.
RE: London - it's going to be interesting to see how long Khan can hold the line on his fare freeze policy. There is massive transport infrastructure investment happening in London at the moment, and planned for the future, and there can be no doubt that this policy puts some of this in danger. What's more it probably makes it far more difficult to put pressure on for government contribution to the investment because they will (justifiably) point out that the Mayor isn't even looking to pass on 'normal' inflationary increases. For all that people complain about fares going up, they at least have come to expect it - switching the burden to Council tax will not be popular.
In itself that's probably so, but does he really want the gig for another four years ..... that's really the key question? Watching him take it in spades from Dave at PMQs last Wednesday, the answer to that is probably almost certainly no. Plus you'd have to wonder whether and at his age he's physically and mentally tough enough to stand up to the job. If I were a betting man, *cough*, my money would definitely be on him being gone well before May 2020 which must seem an eternity away for him if he's not enjoying being LotO which I suspect is probably the case. I've backed him with SkyBET to go in either 2018 at 10/1 (staking 54.2%) or in 2019 at 12/1 (staking 45.8%) to return combined odds of 4.95/1 should he leave office over this two year stretch, which is when the real pressure from within his party as well as from the unions is likely to be applied should he not be cutting it.
I think you're mistaken, from personal knowledge of the man and the party dyanmics.
First, the man. Like me, he's bought fully into the "social duty" concept - the movement isn't about you, it's much more important than you, and any personal difficulty you experience in the course of working for it is not important. He'd regard the question of whether he's enjoying it as entirely frivolous, like asking a fireman if he's having fun as he tries to take people out of a burning building. He will only stand down if he becomes convinced that someone else would carry the socialist torch better, although if he did he'd stand down in an instant.
Second, the party. The party ALWAYS finds reasons to postpone a crunch. We don't like defenestrating leaders, and the let's-rally-round instinct is hugely powerful. The partial exception is serving MPs, who see their careers at risk if the result is bad, but that mainly applies to MPs in marginal seats and to senior figures who want to be Ministers and see the chance slipping away. Most of the party sees through the motives of these, so wielding the knife has serious career risks - I'm by no means vindictive, but there are several serial grumblers who I've noted as people never to vote for.
If the leader was both very unpopular with members and hated by the public and there was an obvious alternative, that would be different. But Corbyn is liked by most members (even by many who didn't vote for him), this week's elections suggest he's not a total turnoff for voters, like Alastair noted on the last thread, and there isn't an obviously more popular alternative.
I think he'll serve through 2020, and if we lose he'll then stand down. If Khan has been a success, I can see him coming under a lot of pressure to return to Parliament at that point. But not before.
Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
Quite why they still seem to think they're on course for a landslide win in 2020, when they're currently running slightly behind their progress at this point of the last parliament, is beyond me.
"There’s been a counting ‘discrepancy’ which delayed the final result, which has to include the reallocation of second preference votes."
"A London Elects spokesman told the Mirror’s Michael Pearson there have been 'small discrepancies within the electoral figures', and they are working with the Electoral Commission to resolve them."
?
PS Has the chief rabbi managed to vote? He reportedly couldn't, because of the mix-up in Barnet.
- or not, as it turns out.
Strange thing to say about Labour's performance in a Scottish general election! But if "the country" means Britain, I think you're right. Some SNP supporters have still got referendum fever, and Tories always vote, so Labour got hit most by people staying at home.
Corbyn was safer than most, due to the current Labour electoral system...
Corbyn today is safer than he was yesterday...
(^_-)
next Holyrood elections predictions:
1st Tories
2nd SNP
3rd Some new party that splits from labour
4th Greens
5th Libdems
6th Labour
This just the start of the recovery for tories!11111!!!!!11!1111
Jamie Reed
@jreedmp Jamie Reed Retweeted Richard Burgon MP
Dear, dear, dear.Jamie Reed added,
Richard Burgon MP @RichardBurgon
And the disastrous electoral legacy Jeremy Corbyn inherited in Scotland was the result of 20 years of New Labour... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/elections-2016-labour-wins-key-southern-england-councils-in-boost-for-jeremy-corbyn-a7016121.html …
Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw 30m30 minutes ago
@jreedmp would that be the New Labour under Tony Blair that won record number of seats in, er, Scotland?
25 retweets 33 likes
Jamie Reed @jreedmp 27m27 minutes ago
@BenPBradshaw The very same. But we're not geniuses.
Red Tories.... they can safely be ignored by the true pure reds. Things are okeydokeymateyblokey. Same goes with bradshaw and reed picking on prospective chancellor burgon.
Why don't they just admit the machines have broken down?
I see Gove has ruled himself out of the Tory leadership contest, removing the fairly obvious option of a May-Gove contest. It's hard to see a contest without a Leave supporter, so perhaps that gives Bois a shot after all. What other prominent Leave Tories might stand and get enough nominatios?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/728690528863277057
Waited over a decade to finally see a PB article confirming a Tory surge in Scotland.
"Bad news from City Hall. I am hearing the problem with the count is more significant than was first let on...."
"The computer which counts the votes has apparently allocated them to the wrong party...."
"We are apparently talking hundreds of votes in each of the 72 parliamentary constituencies."
How are the teeth, btw?
Maxilla or Mandible?
Cuanta Costa?
UKIP +2
Lab -1
LD -1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36050790
"... Conservatives exploit him by choosing a voter-friendly successor to Cameron and seeming vaguely competent..."
Both maybe beyond the Current Conservative Party (especially if there is a recession between now and 2020). However, I still can't see Corbyn winning even if the Conservatives elect Jabba the Hut as their next leader and keep Osborne as CoE.
@NickPalmer
"... I see Gove has ruled himself out of the Tory leadership contest ..."
Gove ruled himself out some years ago, as I have mentioned several times, though people on here seemed disinclined to believe it.
However, one can understand why. Everyone has to examine David Herdson's curates egg, and it's going to be deeply unpalatable to all.
She can call an independence referendum if it's popular.
And if it's not popular she can blame the small parties.
What's the opposite of a poisoned chalice?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434807/donald-trump-his-supporters
Green: 150,673
BNP: 13,325
Respect: 37,007
Britain First: 31,372
Con: 909,755
CSA: 20,537
Lab: 1,148,716
OLP: 4,941
LD: 120,005
WEP: 53,055
UKIP: 94,373
Ind: 13,202
1st round Berry 150673, Furness 13325, Galloway 37007, Golding 31372, Goldsmith 909755,
Harris 20507, Khan 1,148, 716, Love 4941, Pidgeon 120005, Walker 53055, Whittle 94373,
Zylinski 13202
Lab: 161,427 = 1,310,143
Con: 84,859 = 994,614
Khan 1,310,143
Goldsmith 994,614
Khan elected London Mayor
Goofy Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton’s flunky, has a career that is totally based on a lie. She is not Native American.
It is also a great result because it protects them from the obligation of a too-soon independence vote, while allowing them to respond to public demand for a referendum, if it bubbles up with the support the Greens or even other parties.
One may have noticed in recent years that any British party which coalesces with Tories gets crucified. The Lib Dems are still totalled and UUP is barely in the recovery stage.
Anyway, it all comes down to the meme of Nats always say everything is an amazing result, no matter what the actual result is.
'The disaster was Scotland, where Labour finished behind the Conservatives for the first time since the 1950s '
I am not really wishing to quibble but I am pretty sure the Tories beat Labour in Scotland in the Local Elections of 1968 and 1969 . Labour lost Glasgow in those years!
'I congratulate Donald Trump on securing his place as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. There is no doubt that he successfully tapped into the deep sense of anger and frustration so many Americans around the country rightfully feel today.
The tremendous anger of the current U.S. electorate – whether Republican, Democrat or independent – is a result of people fearful about the future, concerned with the direction of our country and tremendously frustrated by the abject failure and inability of leaders in Washington, D.C. to make anything better.
American voters have made it clear that Washington is broken, but I’m not optimistic that either of the leading candidates for President will put us on a better course.
The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.
Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama.
In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress.'
https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/posts/876702172458827
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11672742/I-consider-myself-black-says-white-woman-who-posed-as-an-African-American.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1054790/The-fantasist-9-11-The-story-Tania-Heads-escape-Twin-Towers-captivated-America-heroine-survivors--Just-problem--wasnt-day.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-36210990
The SNP won 42 per cent in a PR system and didn't.
The latter outcome seems fair to me. FPTP is like playing politics on easy mode for the biggest party. This line of criticism is like the top manager in the Isthmian League critiquing Spurs for not winning the Premiership.
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/728727231707648001
And it protects them from sole responsibility for the second independence referendum, which is the most important decision coming up in the next parliament. 5 days ago, the London hacks were delighted that the SNP would have to call a referendum. Now, they're delighted that the SNP can't call a referendum. Meh.
However, I think the hacks have a point. Observe that attempting to fulfil the Conservative manifesto has led to pain after pain for them. Today, academies. Well, that was a few months of pain they didn't need.
If Corbyn got 42, can you imagine the bloodbath on here?
If Cameron got 42, there would be ... well, nowadays, maybe a bloodbath on here too.
And now 63 is a great result....
42 per cent of the vote and a near-majority position is a great result. Any party in Europe would kill for 42 per cent.
I think the PB conventional wisdom here is that 20 odd per cent is somehow a great result but that 42 per cent is a bad result.
In itself that's probably so, but does he really want the gig for another four years ..... that's really the key question?
Watching him take it in spades from Dave at PMQs last Wednesday, the answer to that is probably almost certainly no. Plus you'd have to wonder whether and at his age he's physically and mentally tough enough to stand up to the job.
If I were a betting man, *cough*, my money would definitely be on him being gone well before May 2020 which must seem an eternity away for him if he's not enjoying being LotO which I suspect is probably the case.
I've backed him with SkyBET to go in either 2018 at 10/1 (staking 54.2%) or in 2019 at 12/1 (staking 45.8%) to return combined odds of 4.95/1 should he leave office over this two year stretch, which is when the real pressure from within his party as well as from the unions is likely to be applied should he not be cutting it.
20% is great for the Tories given their near extinction in Scotland. 42% is not great (still good mind you) for the SNP as they have lost their majority, against expectations.
Based on the blanket coverage given over to the contest on Oddschecker, I has assumed it was taking place tonight ..... WRONG.
Oh well, back to Khan, Goldsmith, etc ..... yawn.
I think you have it right. The d'Hondt AMS second vote system throws up plenty of curved balls but should not be mistaken for real support. The big blunder by the SNP was to allow the belief (aided and abetted by an unlikely and unholly alliance between the mainstream media, leftist commentators and St John Curtice) that they were home and dry on the constituencies leading to tactical voting for the Greens which then cost them dear on the lists. For all that the Nats comfortably topped every second vote regional poll across the country, even if they received virtually nothing for it.
That was careless by the SNP given there previous success under Salmond of defining the second vote as one for First Minister in 2007 and 2011. The Tories copied this tactic by presenting the list vote as one to choose the leader of the opposition. The failure to define the second vote other than to parrot "both votes SNP" should lead to substantial soul searching in SNP HQ. It is a sign that they need to strengthen their backroom team whose previous excellence under Kevin Pringle and Geoff Aberdein was at the heart of the Salmond led breakthrough. .
However the votes that reflect real political strength are in the constituency and here the SNP are at 47%, Labour at 22% and the Tories at 21%. In just about every other political system in the world that would produce a full majority government and is a remarkable declaration of support given that the NATS have been in power for nine years.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
And now the separatists are left, like the Japanese after WW2, with a few combatants out in the jungle, desperately unaware that the war is over. And they lost.
First, the man. Like me, he's bought fully into the "social duty" concept - the movement isn't about you, it's much more important than you, and any personal difficulty you experience in the course of working for it is not important. He'd regard the question of whether he's enjoying it as entirely frivolous, like asking a fireman if he's having fun as he tries to take people out of a burning building. He will only stand down if he becomes convinced that someone else would carry the socialist torch better, although if he did he'd stand down in an instant.
Second, the party. The party ALWAYS finds reasons to postpone a crunch. We don't like defenestrating leaders, and the let's-rally-round instinct is hugely powerful. The partial exception is serving MPs, who see their careers at risk if the result is bad, but that mainly applies to MPs in marginal seats and to senior figures who want to be Ministers and see the chance slipping away. Most of the party sees through the motives of these, so wielding the knife has serious career risks - I'm by no means vindictive, but there are several serial grumblers who I've noted as people never to vote for.
If the leader was both very unpopular with members and hated by the public and there was an obvious alternative, that would be different. But Corbyn is liked by most members (even by many who didn't vote for him), this week's elections suggest he's not a total turnoff for voters, like Alastair noted on the last thread, and there isn't an obviously more popular alternative.
I think he'll serve through 2020, and if we lose he'll then stand down. If Khan has been a success, I can see him coming under a lot of pressure to return to Parliament at that point. But not before.