politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest slot: Polling analysis finds Labour Loses Supporters

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest slot: Polling analysis finds Labour Loses Supporters of Brexit

In the EU referendum, online and phone polls have persistently been at odds. Last week, YouGov reacted by publishing in full a set of parallel online and phone polling conducted in early May, exposing flaws in the phone sample to defend its own online method.  For polling junkies that unprecedented transparency had a further welcome consequence.

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

Hmmm

That was a shock result.

Have no fear, this Leaver is definitely still Labour.

TheScreamingEagles

Thank you for this Philip, a very interesting and well researched piece.

FrancisUrquhart

Ed Miliband back to the shadow cabinet...whatever next....Joey Essex to become a special adviser on education?

TCPoliticalBetting

Wow Phil. An article that adds knowledge and gets under the numbers.... and is pro LEAVE.
Time to have a lie down in the sun.

IanB2

FPT

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

In the event of a Leave vote, UKIP's role becomes 'guardians of the true flame'. Whatever deal is done by the Tories in the aftermath of the vote won't be good enough for them, and there will be plenty of people ready to cry "sell out" the minute we join the single market, agree to make new payments to the EU, agree to follow lots of EU rules, or accept 'free movement', etc.

Whilst this doesn't, I think, offer a long term base for their party, there would be enough voters eager to express their protest at the new deal with the EU (and no other party really able to collect them) to keep them going for an election or two.

After all, most UKIP people imagine a world where the EU just disappears, and the central problem with their campaign is that it will not, as a consequence, really face up to what life as a small country on the edge of a continuing EU would actually be like...
</>

HurstLlama said:

Small country on the edge of Europe? A state of 60 odd million people, the fifth biggest economy on the planet and still one of the top ten manufacturers. I do not think so.

Furthermore, I can remember what it was to be outside the EU, and you know, it wasn't that bad. We could move about pretty well (didn't even need a proper passport for many countries in those days), could buy and sell pretty well too. As I sit here and look around nothing, aside from the books and pictures, is made in the EU and even the wine I am serving with Sunday lunch comes from New Zealand (better value than anything from within the fabled single market)

All in all I'd face the prospect of being in a country on the edge of the EU with equanimity.

The point I was making is that, if the EU continues (Rawnsley today is an interesting read, as an aside), we will need a deal with them, and they will have more clout and leverage than us. Inevitably there will be concessions from the UK around regulations/payments/free movement - opposition to which is the very thing that motivates most of the anti-EU true believers. As with most 'revolutions' a split will emerge between pragmatists and fundamentalists and UKIP is the only party positioned to collect support from the latter. Hence the argument made earlier in the thread that Leave would mean the end of UKIP is IMHO premature.

I cannot see that debating precisely how big or strong the UK is compared to the EU or rest of the world really detracts from my point?

weejonnie

SandyRentool said:

Hmmm

That was a shock result.

Have no fear, this Leaver is definitely still Labour.

Well nobody's perfect.

edmundintokyo

Those who voted Labour in 2015 split about 2:1 in favour of Remain over Leave. By early May 2016 that had risen to almost 3:1 for current Labour voters, thanks almost entirely to the desertion of former Labour voters backing Leave.

What happened in between?

The obvious things that would cause EU-hostile ex-Labour voters to stop supporting Labour would be:
* They don't like Corbyn.
* They grumpily go UKIP in mid-term.
* They've been gradually trending away from Labour for years.

If you want to blame this on Labour's referendum campaign you need some numbers from right before the referendum campaign to compare with, not general election numbers.

PlatoSaid

Thought provoking thread - many thanks.

Anecdotal evidence seems to reflect your analysis also.

LabourLeave have crowd funded their own short film for Brexit - should be out shortly via YouTube.

MarkSenior

An interesting article thanks Phil . The snag is that the figures are based on Yougov online polling which purports to show that UKIP support is well up on May 2015 whereas all actual ballot box polls show that UKIP support is at best static and more likely down a bit on a year ago . Your analysis may not stand up to real election results .

NickPalmer

Interesting article and a welcome addition to the article panel - hope you'll write some more. I think that "keeping a foot in both camps" has its problems for the Tories, though - the electorate may identify Tory politician X as a good bloke for supporting the right side, but the overall impression of vitriolic division is damaging (as it has been for Labour). The impression that the Government is a shambles which Cameron is barely keeping on the road till the 23rd is not restricted to lefties.

HurstLlama

IanB2 said:

FPT


The point I was making is that, if the EU continues (Rawnsley today is an interesting read, as an aside), we will need a deal with them, and they will have more clout and leverage than us. Inevitably there will be concessions from the UK around regulations/payments/free movement - opposition to which is the very thing that motivates most of the anti-EU true believers. As with most 'revolutions' a split will emerge between pragmatists and fundamentalists and UKIP is the only party positioned to collect support from the latter. Hence the argument made earlier in the thread that Leave would mean the end of UKIP is IMHO premature.

I cannot see that debating precisely how big or strong the UK is compared to the EU or rest of the world really detracts from my point?

Mr. B2, I am sorry and I apologise. I took your comment that the UK would be a small country on the edge of the EU at face value.

Of course in the event of a leave vote a deal will have to be done but there will be negotiation. We run a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU, quite aside for the billions we pass to it from taxes. Our negotiating position might be stronger than you seem to think.

Wulfrun_Phil

For the record, there are a couple of gremlins in my "summary change" spreadsheet linked to at the bottom of the article. These do not however affect the figures quoted in the article at all. In the "summary change" sheet, in both the "vote 2015" and "losses" columns, the "other - in" and "other -DK/WNV" cells should be 3 and 2 greater respectively, bringing the totals for those columns to 1527 and 506 respectively.

viewcode

HurstLlama said:

We run a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU...Our negotiating position might be stronger than you seem to think.

How are you going to phrase that: "do what we want or we'll buy less stuff", or "do what we want or we'll sell you less stuff". Both stances are dangerous.

justin124

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candidates. We could turn it around and contemplate what would have been the Labour/Tory % shares in 2015 had there been just 220 LibDems standing together with a sprinkling of UKIP /Green candidates.That would certainly have pushed up the % vote shares for both main parties.
Unlike Gaitskell in 1959, Milliband did make a small net gain from the Tories and secured a small national swing in Labour's favour - based entirely on a better result in England.

TCPoliticalBetting

NickPalmer said:

.......The impression that the Government is a shambles which Cameron is barely keeping on the road till the 23rd is not restricted to lefties.

I agree. If only Cameron had copied Harold Wilson.

HYUFD

Only around 25% of Labour voters back Remain, so 3/7 of 25% is not that much compared to the 50%+ of Tory voters who will back Leave. 32% of 50% of Tory voters switching to UKIP is a higher total so UKIP have more Tory voters to gain than Labour voters. The Tory party will only likely choose a Leaver if it is Leave, if it is Remain they will most likely pick a Remainer, even if a mildly Eurosceptic one, offering UKIP its chance

viewcode

Anyhoo, got to get some work done. This week's work music is "1. Outside" by David Bowie. Laters, alligators.

PAW

"do what we want or we'll buy less stuff" - the customer is always right.

Charles

viewcode said:

HurstLlama said:

We run a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU...Our negotiating position might be stronger than you seem to think.

How are you going to phrase that: "do what we want or we'll buy less stuff", or "do what we want or we'll sell you less stuff". Both stances are dangerous.

You're not going to phrase it at all. It will be part of an analysis that both sides will do to determine whether a deal is attractive or not

PlatoSaid

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Wow Phil. An article that adds knowledge and gets under the numbers.... and is pro LEAVE.
Time to have a lie down in the sun.

For anyone interested in LabourLeave's messaging

https://twitter.com/labourleave

From this morning:

Labour Leave
.@UKLabour will be a Party of history if it does not listen to those Labour voters who oppose EU membership.

@PaulEmbery
Tony Blair displaying the same utterly dismissive attitude to concerns over immigration that saw Labour ship so many votes to Ukip. #Marr

Labour Leave
Attributing all these things to the EU devalues our Party, it's history and great figures who have led change.

MikeSmithson

I've just discovered a William Hill bet I'd forgotten about placed in 2012. 10/1 That Britain would be out of the EU by 2020.

TCPoliticalBetting

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candidates. We could turn it around and contemplate what would have been the Labour/Tory % shares in 2015 had there been just 220 LibDems standing together with a sprinkling of UKIP /Green candidates.That would certainly have pushed up the % vote shares for both main parties.
Unlike Gaitskell in 1959, Milliband did make a small net gain from the Tories and secured a small national swing in Labour's favour - based entirely on a better result in England.

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

SouthamObserver

Labour cannot and should not pretend to be what it isn't. And it is a pro-Europe party. The electorate then decides. The basic point is that Labour cannot win on its 2015 numbers anyway. It can only win if it regains votes lost a decade or more ago. That involves a level of introspection and self-criticism that party members have consistently demonstrated they are not capable of.

MikeK

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Wow Phil. An article that adds knowledge and gets under the numbers.... and is pro LEAVE.
Time to have a lie down in the sun.

Is there any sun around? Down in NE London it's still muggy with an occasional beam flickering behind the clouds.

Now gonna have a siesta.

PlatoSaid

MikeK said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Wow Phil. An article that adds knowledge and gets under the numbers.... and is pro LEAVE.
Time to have a lie down in the sun.

Is there any sun around? Down in NE London it's still muggy with an occasional beam flickering behind the clouds.

Lovely in Eastbourne, as ever

GIN1138

Gosh, the bitterness on the Tory party today is quite something... Reading some of the quotes from Priti and Gove it's impossible to see how Cameron can possibly bring this broken and shattered party back together on 24th June...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36407446

justin124

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candidates. We could turn it around and contemplate what would have been the Labour/Tory % shares in 2015 had there been just 220 LibDems standing together with a sprinkling of UKIP /Green candidates.That would certainly have pushed up the % vote shares for both main parties.
Unlike Gaitskell in 1959, Milliband did make a small net gain from the Tories and secured a small national swing in Labour's favour - based entirely on a better result in England.

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

I have simply provided you with a few facts - some of which you appear to have been ignorant.As for the limited number of Liberal candidates in the 1950s affecting both major parties, that is apoint that I have already made to you twice.Moreover, albeit to a lesser extent, it continued to be the case in the 1960s when the number of Liberal candidates peaked at 365 in 1964.Only since October 1974 have they contested pretty well every seat on the same basis as the two major parties.

Indigo

GIN1138 said:

Gosh, the bitterness on the Tory party today is quite something... Reading some of the quotes from Priti and Gove it's impossible to see how Cameron can possibly bring this broken and shattered party back together on 24th June...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36407446

It's lucky that Party Management is his strong suit.... oh wait!

PAW

I feel cheered up by this article, it shows there is a Labour member that is clear thinking.

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candidates. We could turn it around and contemplate what would have been the Labour/Tory % shares in 2015 had there been just 220 LibDems standing together with a sprinkling of UKIP /Green candidates.That would certainly have pushed up the % vote shares for both main parties.
Unlike Gaitskell in 1959, Milliband did make a small net gain from the Tories and secured a small national swing in Labour's favour - based entirely on a better result in England.

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

I have simply provided you with a few facts - some of which you appear to have been ignorant.As for the limited number of Liberal candidates in the 1950s affecting both major parties, that is apoint that I have already made to you twice.Moreover, albeit to a lesser extent, it continued to be the case in the 1960s when the number of Liberal candidates peaked at 365 in 1964.Only since October 1974 have they contested pretty well every seat on the same basis as the two major parties.

As I have already said the Liberals would have taken from both major parties, the number of MPs they held would likely have been little different. The key point which you have completely ignored is that Ed Miliband only got 232 MPs to 258 for Gaitskill, had Gaitskill only got 232 MPs he would likely have been toast. Yes it was largely due to Scotland and as I have already said if the election was England and Wales only Miliband may have survived but it was not so he went!

GIN1138

On Topic:

Labour has abandoned it's working class roots and voters... I'm not surprised there are a lot of Labour voters for Brexit in working class areas... And whether these Labour inclined voters would ever admit to pollsters, especially those on the telephone, that they are in favour of LEAVE is something else to consider.

IanB2

HurstLlama said:

Mr. B2, I am sorry and I apologise. I took your comment that the UK would be a small country on the edge of the EU at face value.

Of course in the event of a leave vote a deal will have to be done but there will be negotiation. We run a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU, quite aside for the billions we pass to it from taxes. Our negotiating position might be stronger than you seem to think.

No problem, this is an interesting debate. On prospects for the negotiation Rawnsley today says a lot about this, and I rather fear he may be closer to the truth than you?

If there is a leave vote I do think it would as close to a 'revolution' as is possible within a democratic system, given the overwhelming establishment support for Remain; indeed many in UKIP style themselves in this way. I spent a lot of time as a student studying how revolutions progress.

Commonly, and particularly in the absence of a single charismatic leader and widely shared aims and objectives, it doesn't take long before a winning revolution starts to fall apart as factions emerge with very different views about how things should proceed. There is a power vacuum and so individuals and all manner of interest groups fight each other for new influence. There is almost always space for people who see themselves as 'guardians' of the revolutionary spirit to attack from the extreme any pragmatic attempt to secure a new settlement. Sometimes this spirals off into further and further challenges until the whole thing collapses (e.g. Cromwell, who was heading in that direction but managed to die before things then collapsed under his son). Revolutions that settle down get 'captured' by powerful leader (e.g. Napoleon, Lenin then Stalin) who deals with fundamentalist opposition by killing them off; in time many features of the system that was overthrown re-emerge and if the original revolutionaries survive they feel sold out (i.e. the plot of Animal Farm).

(Just putting an edit in as this sounds v negative; historians then debate the extent to which the revolution nevertheless sows seeds that effect significant change over the years that follow. Many argue "considerably").

Lots of potential parallels with the future that may await us if we vote leave, in my view. Throw in the short-term recession that even most leavers concede, plus some of Rawnsley's potential EU disintegration and we could be on for very interesting times indeed. But not in a good way.

Boris clearly fancies himself as some sort of Titan from history reborn, but personally I would be surprised if our home-grown comedian/twat hybrid really has it in him to step up to the plate?

HYUFD

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

No poll at all, even those showing Labour winning, have a majority of Labour voters backing Leave, yes you may find a majority in Knowsley but you may find a majority of Tory voters backing Remain by 60/40 in Kensington and Chelsea, neither are representative of party voters as a whole!

AnneJGP

MikeSmithson said:

I've just discovered a William Hill bet I'd forgotten about placed in 2012. 10/1 That Britain would be out of the EU by 2020.

Am I allowed to say "I hope it wins big for you"?

Afternoon, everyone.

TCPoliticalBetting

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

I do not think Labour will break 60/40 across all classes. Only the working class (remember them?) ones will do that in their intention. But a large part of Labour working class C2DE will not vote and those that do vote are going to probably be 50/50. Overall I would guess that Labour 2016 may be 2:1 in favour of REMAIN. But that will be after Labour 2016 has lost a chunk of voters to UKIP putting UKIP just under 20% in 2016.

Wanderer

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

No shit. If Leave is ahead with Labour voters then we are having the wrong discussion. The question is whether Remain can get above 40%. Hard to see how if it is only get 40% of Labour.

Remain sub 40% band is 50/1 on Betfair.

If, though.

Tony

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

SouthamObserver

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

AnneJGP

Very interesting analysis, thanks you. Always amazing what can be done with data - collect it for one purpose & it can show you gaps in your knowledge in places you never imagined.

PlatoSaid

AnneJGP said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've just discovered a William Hill bet I'd forgotten about placed in 2012. 10/1 That Britain would be out of the EU by 2020.

Am I allowed to say "I hope it wins big for you"?

Afternoon, everyone.

justin124

An interesting article but not entirely supported by recent election results. UKIP did not fare that well on May 5th and has found it difficult to hang on to seats at by-elections - losing a seat to Labour last week in Staffordshire.

IanB2

AnneJGP said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've just discovered a William Hill bet I'd forgotten about placed in 2012. 10/1 That Britain would be out of the EU by 2020.

Am I allowed to say "I hope it wins big for you"?

Afternoon, everyone.

A lot could happen (or not happen, in time!) between the cup of a 2016 leave vote and Mike's lip in 2020 (I recommend Mike checks the small print to see if it means 1 Jan or 31 Dec!).

Wanderer

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

There aren't 6 million "liberal luvvies". (That being approximately 70% of Labour's vote last year.)

GIN1138

SouthamObserver said:

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

Dan The Man thinks it's all sown up for REMAIN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614662/DAN-HODGES-Not-immigration-Frankenstein-save-Brexit-mob-won-t-stop-setting-loose.html

justin124

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candidates. We could turn it around and contemplate what would have been the Labour/Tory % shares in 2015 had there been just 220 LibDems standing together with a sprinkling of UKIP /Green candidates.That would certainly have pushed up the % vote shares for both main parties.
Unlike Gaitskell in 1959, Milliband did make a small net gain from the Tories and secured a small national swing in Labour's favour - based entirely on a better result in England.

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

I have simply provided you with a few facts - some of which you appear to have been ignorant.As for the limited number of Liberal candidates in the 1950s affecting both major parties, that is apoint that I have already made to you twice.Moreover, albeit to a lesser extent, it continued to be the case in the 1960s when the number of Liberal candidates peaked at 365 in 1964.Only since October 1974 have they contested pretty well every seat on the same basis as the two major parties.

As I have already said the Liberals would have taken from both major parties, the number of MPs they held would likely have been little different. The key point which you have completely ignored is that Ed Miliband only got 232 MPs to 258 for Gaitskill, had Gaitskill only got 232 MPs he would likely have been toast. Yes it was largely due to Scotland and as I have already said if the election was England and Wales only Miliband may have survived but it was not so he went!

I don't believe that Milliband was blamed for Labour's troubles in Scotland.

SouthamObserver

Wanderer said:

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

There aren't 6 million "liberal luvvies". (That being approximately 70% of Labour's vote last year.)

Don't forget the "bad" working class Labour voters that work in the public services and are members of trade unions.

PlatoSaid

Charity Commission investigation - US direct mail firms creaming off millions from donations. One charity spent 90% on DM, 10 others picked at random from 350 others spent 78%.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ch-ar-it-ie-s-co-sts-ea-t-up-78-of-donati-ons-287sqm6n0

FrancisUrquhart

Finn is only bowling at 82mph...whatever happened to that kid up sent them down at 94 mph...

Wanderer

SouthamObserver said:

Wanderer said:

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

There aren't 6 million "liberal luvvies". (That being approximately 70% of Labour's vote last year.)

Don't forget the "bad" working class Labour voters that work in the public services and are members of trade unions.

Ah, them! Devils.

ThreeQuidder

SouthamObserver said:

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

L is for Leicester.
L is for Leave.

SouthamObserver

GIN1138 said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

Dan The Man thinks it's all sown up for REMAIN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614662/DAN-HODGES-Not-immigration-Frankenstein-save-Brexit-mob-won-t-stop-setting-loose.html

He's spectacularly wrong. Just as he was spectacularly wrong about UKIP's vote share in the GE. Being right about Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn does not mske you a seer, just a stater of the bleedin' obvious!

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Interesting race.

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candi

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

I have simply provided you with a few facts - some of which you appear to have been ignorant.As for the limited number of Liberal candidates in the 1950s affecting both major parties, that is apoint that I have already made to you twice.Moreover, albeit to a lesser extent, it continued to be the case in the 1960s when the number of Liberal candidates peaked at 365 in 1964.Only since October 1974 have they contested pretty well every seat on the same basis as the two major parties.

As I have already said the Liberals would have taken from both major parties, the number of MPs they held would likely have been little different. The key point which you have completely ignored is that Ed Miliband only got 232 MPs to 258 for Gaitskill, had Gaitskill only got 232 MPs he would likely have been toast. Yes it was largely due to Scotland and as I have already said if the election was England and Wales only Miliband may have survived but it was not so he went!

I don't believe that Milliband was blamed for Labour's troubles in Scotland.

He lost 39 MPs there as leader of the party, who else was there to blame? Regardless of what others may have thought he clearly thought he was to blame as he resigned the day after the election

ThreeQuidder

justin124 said:

An interesting article but not entirely supported by recent election results. UKIP did not fare that well on May 5th and has found it difficult to hang on to seats at by-elections - losing a seat to Labour last week in Staffordshire.

You're the second person on this thread to confuse local elections with a referendum.

SandyRentool

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Interesting race.

It isn't about race, it is about immigration.

GIN1138

SouthamObserver said:

GIN1138 said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

Dan The Man thinks it's all sown up for REMAIN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614662/DAN-HODGES-Not-immigration-Frankenstein-save-Brexit-mob-won-t-stop-setting-loose.html

He's spectacularly wrong. Just as he was spectacularly wrong about UKIP's vote share in the GE. Being right about Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn does not mske you a seer, just a stater of the bleedin' obvious!

Will he be streaking down The Mall if LEAVE wins?

HYUFD

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

All those AB1 Luvvies will turn out to vote too

GIN1138

Worth keeping an eye on this - We'll find out how panic stricken Cameron and Osborne are when Matthew D'Ancona's latest article hits the Guardian this evening;

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/matthew-dancona

If it's full of bitterness and bile at Boris, Gove and Priti we'll know they're hitting the panic button in the Bunker...

PlatoSaid

Good piece from Lord Owen on why half the electorate are looking to Leave.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/focus/all-we-have-to-fear-is-fear-itself-wscs8jpqt

Indigo

GIN1138 said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

Dan The Man thinks it's all sown up for REMAIN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614662/DAN-HODGES-Not-immigration-Frankenstein-save-Brexit-mob-won-t-stop-setting-loose.html

Dan is the founder of a pro-migration, open borders pressure group, he has no idea what the public think about immigration!

Indigo

HYUFD said:

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

All those AB1 Luvvies will turn out to vote too

Maybe.

ThreeQuidder

Indigo said:

HYUFD said:

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

All those AB1 Luvvies will turn out to vote too

Maybe.

They probably will because they always do, but they're priced in.

The question is whether people who don't vote in elections because "they're all the same" will turn out this time.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

GIN1138 said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's the hope that kills you.

Leave are playing the Champions of Europe. They've come from behind to take the lead in the 70th minute. Can they hold on?

Dan The Man thinks it's all sown up for REMAIN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614662/DAN-HODGES-Not-immigration-Frankenstein-save-Brexit-mob-won-t-stop-setting-loose.html

He's spectacularly wrong. Just as he was spectacularly wrong about UKIP's vote share in the GE. Being right about Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn does not mske you a seer, just a stater of the bleedin' obvious!

I think that Remain will win by 53/47% or thereabouts. But, if I thought I was heading for such a narrow win, I certainly wouldn't be proclaiming victory at this point.

So much political commentary is wishful thinking with a veneer of objectivity.

Scott_P

@TheEconomist: The Leave campaign's dog-whistle strategy will only succeed if Remain voters don't turn out https://t.co/a8kT5GMUzt https://t.co/b5GHQWdd1z

FrancisUrquhart

Seems Alternative für Deutschland’s deputy leader has had a "you wouldn't want to live next door to them" moment...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/29/german-far-right-party-row-jerome-boateng-neighbour-comments

Sean_F

ThreeQuidder said:

justin124 said:

An interesting article but not entirely supported by recent election results. UKIP did not fare that well on May 5th and has found it difficult to hang on to seats at by-elections - losing a seat to Labour last week in Staffordshire.

You're the second person on this thread to confuse local elections with a referendum.

Local Elections Aren't National Elections is a phrase that any would-be political commentator should learn off by heart.

MTimT

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

FPT


The point I was making is that, if the EU continues (Rawnsley today is an interesting read, as an aside), we will need a deal with them, and they will have more clout and leverage than us. Inevitably there will be concessions from the UK around regulations/payments/free movement - opposition to which is the very thing that motivates most of the anti-EU true believers. As with most 'revolutions' a split will emerge between pragmatists and fundamentalists and UKIP is the only party positioned to collect support from the latter. Hence the argument made earlier in the thread that Leave would mean the end of UKIP is IMHO premature.

I cannot see that debating precisely how big or strong the UK is compared to the EU or rest of the world really detracts from my point?

Mr. B2, I am sorry and I apologise. I took your comment that the UK would be a small country on the edge of the EU at face value.

Of course in the event of a leave vote a deal will have to be done but there will be negotiation. We run a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU, quite aside for the billions we pass to it from taxes. Our negotiating position might be stronger than you seem to think.

Indeed. As any real estate developer who has had to deal with a hold-out property owner whose property he needs to complete the land parcel for a major development knows, it is not the relative size of the two negotiating parties that is relevant, but who wants the deal more.

PS Unless you are dealing with Putin. Or Stalin. Or Hitler. etc... But we are told comparisons of the EU with such are totally invalid.

PlatoSaid

#Labour MSP breaks ranks to make 'left-wing' case for #Brexit https://t.co/jrfp0kEV95

Caroline Ansell MP for my town has also just come out for Leave according to local reports.

EPG

I don't know why people think it matters whether the EU runs a trade surplus with Britain - we've seen that any major topic nowadays is dealt with by the Council. If that trade surplus is just the EU's massive-surplus nation, Germany, why would the rest care? So you need to see the bilateral balances if you believe this reason for everything being OK after Brexit, which is itself questionable but whatever.

Wulfrun_Phil

MarkSenior said:

An interesting article thanks Phil . The snag is that the figures are based on Yougov online polling which purports to show that UKIP support is well up on May 2015 whereas all actual ballot box polls show that UKIP support is at best static and more likely down a bit on a year ago . Your analysis may not stand up to real election results .

The thrust of the piece is that there is a significant proportion of 2015 Labour voters who support Leave minority (a minority of all 2015 Labour voters but nonetheless a very significant one) whose continued support for Labour is in some jeopardy, regardless of where they might have decided to switch or whether they would vote for anyone else. YouGov's record of its online panel's declared vote in 2015 is just about as reliable as it can get, because those records date from surveys conducted in the days immediately following the general election, which is not the case with phone polling. So I think the indication of at least the potential for switching should be worrying for Labour. It should give the party pause for thought about whether it is really prepared to seriously p**s off a group of voters previously prepared to vote for it by associating Labour so explicitly with the "Remain" camp. (It should, but I don't think it will).

All this might be stating what you might very much have been expected to be the case anyway and certainly Gisela Stuart and Frank Field have claimed as much in recent weeks. We now have some (admittedly limited) polling evidence that backs up their claims. There isn't any polling evidence that I'm aware of that contradicts it.

It's not about UKIP per se and whether these polling responses actually translate into votes for UKIP is another matter, although as ever I think you have to be careful in using low turnout local government elections and by-elections as an indication of voting in higher turnout general election (or even drawing comparisons with high turnout local government elections conducted in May 2015).

Morris_Dancer

F1: my post-race analysis of a pretty interesting Monaco race is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/monaco-post-race-2016.html

Canada's next, in a fortnight.

VapidBilge

EPG said:

I don't know why people think it matters whether the EU runs a trade surplus with Britain - we've seen that any major topic nowadays is dealt with by the Council. If that trade surplus is just the EU's massive-surplus nation, Germany, why would the rest care? So you need to see the bilateral balances if you believe this reason for everything being OK after Brexit, which is itself questionable but whatever.

So, Germany doesn't dictate EU policy? Merkel had no sway in the refugee crisis?

I think you need to do Realpolitik 101.

Morris_Dancer

On-topic: interesting piece. I do think there's a potentially serious threat to Labour from the socially conservative (ones who would never leap to Conservatives) leaping to UKIP.

EPG

VapidBilge said:

EPG said:

I don't know why people think it matters whether the EU runs a trade surplus with Britain - we've seen that any major topic nowadays is dealt with by the Council. If that trade surplus is just the EU's massive-surplus nation, Germany, why would the rest care? So you need to see the bilateral balances if you believe this reason for everything being OK after Brexit, which is itself questionable but whatever.

So, Germany doesn't dictate EU policy? Merkel had no sway in the refugee crisis?

I think you need to do Realpolitik 101.

Germany gets a lot. So do other countries, like the UK. In fact, everyone gets something out of the EU.

Reading the German press, you would think that the EU exists to redistribute their export revenue and savings to Southrons. Then again, bad-faith user accounts set up as personal attacks on REMAIN suporters probably don't read the German press.

rcs1000

Abiding to the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi blog:
"It is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world."

FrancisUrquhart

rcs1000 said:

Abiding to the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi blog:
"It is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world."

I won't ask why you were perusing the Daily Stormer...

HYUFD

If Remain win narrowly there is a small but not insignificant chance that UKIP lead the polls by September thanks to furious Leave voters flocking to them from both the Tories and Labour

rottenborough

rcs1000 said:

Abiding to the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi blog:
"It is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world."

I like the "established fact" bit.

rottenborough

Morris_Dancer said:

On-topic: interesting piece. I do think there's a potentially serious threat to Labour from the socially conservative (ones who would never leap to Conservatives) leaping to UKIP.

Crudas says as much in his latest report on the future for Labour.

FrancisUrquhart

Daily Mail headline in 2020...

Can't switch off criminal foreign AI because of their 'uman rights...


"Advances in artificial intelligence could lead to computers and smartphones developing consciousness and they may need to be given ‘human’ rights, an expert has claimed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/29/computers-could-develop-consciousness-and-may-need-human-rights/

Estobar

Best article on pb.com for a very long time: informative, penetrative and broadening the usual tired polemic. More of this please.

rottenborough

PlatoSaid said:

Good piece from Lord Owen on why half the electorate are looking to Leave.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/focus/all-we-have-to-fear-is-fear-itself-wscs8jpqt

Is this Lord Owen chap in some way related to a David Owen, who left Labour to form the SNP in the 1980s in major part because of the party's anti-eu policies?

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

Abiding to the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi blog:
"It is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world."

I won't ask why you were perusing the Daily Stormer...

Probably for the same reason I follow Nick Griffin, The EDL, Britain First, and The KKK.

The output is hysterical.

justin124

ThreeQuidder said:

justin124 said:

An interesting article but not entirely supported by recent election results. UKIP did not fare that well on May 5th and has found it difficult to hang on to seats at by-elections - losing a seat to Labour last week in Staffordshire.

You're the second person on this thread to confuse local elections with a referendum.

I have not referred to the Referendum - at which I intend to vote Leave anyway.

rottenborough

Scott_P said:

@TheEconomist: The Leave campaign's dog-whistle strategy will only succeed if Remain voters don't turn out https://t.co/a8kT5GMUzt https://t.co/b5GHQWdd1z

This, on failure to plan an economic case, is so correct in the linked article:

"The failure is remarkable—and telling. Many at the top of the Leave campaign have been pushing for this referendum for years, even decades. They surely always knew that, when their time came, winning the economic battle would be their main hurdle. Yet they appear to have done little serious preparation."

As I said earlier on PB, it beggars belief. What have they all been thinking about for the last twenty years?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, Cruddas seems like a fairly intelligent chap. Which is probably why he's being totally ignored by Corbyn et al.

Mr. Urquhart, that would make the ending of a Terminator film a bit less exciting.

"Quick, John! Destroy Skynet!"

"I can't, that would violate the European convention on human rights!"

FrancisUrquhart

God Finn is down to sub 80mph now...thats club cricket speed. At Test match level you got to make it bend like an EU banana* to get somebody out.

* its a joke..

williamglenn

rottenborough said:

PlatoSaid said:

Good piece from Lord Owen on why half the electorate are looking to Leave.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/focus/all-we-have-to-fear-is-fear-itself-wscs8jpqt

Is this Lord Owen chap in some way related to a David Owen, who left Labour to form the SNP in the 1980s in major part because of the party's anti-eu policies?

Owen's been one of the stronger figures in the Leave campaign so far. One of the only to successfully frame the argument as being a case of the EU leaving us rather than the other way round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWVO2d9Spks

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

If Remain win narrowly there is a small but not insignificant chance that UKIP lead the polls by September thanks to furious Leave voters flocking to them from both the Tories and Labour

If my expectation is correct, and Remain wins narrowly, I think there will be a lot of buyer's remorse.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, Cruddas seems like a fairly intelligent chap. Which is probably why he's being totally ignored by Corbyn et al.

Mr. Urquhart, that would make the ending of a Terminator film a bit less exciting.

"Quick, John! Destroy Skynet!"

"I can't, that would violate the European convention on human rights!"

Skynet is an American company, not sure how the ECHR applies to them.

Plus if you've seen Terminator: Genisys, no way John Connor will destroy Skynet

justin124

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candi

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

I have simply provided you with a few facts - some of which you appear to have been ignorant.As for the limited number of Liberal candidates in the 1950s affecting both major parties, that is apoint that I have already made to you twice.Moreover, albeit to a lesser extent, it continued to be the case in the 1960s when the number of Liberal candidates peaked at 365 in 1964.Only since October 1974 have they contested pretty well every seat on the same basis as the two major parties.

As I have already said the Liberals would have taken from both major parties, the number of MPs they held would likely have been little different. The key point which you have completely ignored is that Ed Miliband only got 232 MPs to 258 for Gaitskill, had Gaitskill only got 232 MPs he would likely have been toast. Yes it was largely due to Scotland and as I have already said if the election was England and Wales only Miliband may have survived but it was not so he went!

I don't believe that Milliband was blamed for Labour's troubles in Scotland.

He lost 39 MPs there as leader of the party, who else was there to blame? Regardless of what others may have thought he clearly thought he was to blame as he resigned the day after the election

The Leaders of Scottish Labour over a generation were -and are - to blame!

PlatoSaid

Too weird.

Rubio personally apologized to Trump for implying he had a small penis. https://t.co/WLMA46LMwp via @HuffPostPol

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, Cruddas seems like a fairly intelligent chap. Which is probably why he's being totally ignored by Corbyn et al.

Mr. Urquhart, that would make the ending of a Terminator film a bit less exciting.

"Quick, John! Destroy Skynet!"

"I can't, that would violate the European convention on human rights!"

Skynet is an American company, not sure how the ECHR applies to them.

Plus if you've seen Terminator: Genisys, no way John Connor will destroy Skynet

IIRC Crudas was ignored by Ed M's team as well, even though they commissioned him to do the policy and prepare for the manifesto. Metropolitan Labour just does not want to hear his message that there are Labour voters who value "flag, faith, community and family"

FrancisUrquhart

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, Cruddas seems like a fairly intelligent chap. Which is probably why he's being totally ignored by Corbyn et al.

Mr. Urquhart, that would make the ending of a Terminator film a bit less exciting.

"Quick, John! Destroy Skynet!"

"I can't, that would violate the European convention on human rights!"

Skynet is an American company, not sure how the ECHR applies to them.

Plus if you've seen Terminator: Genisys, no way John Connor will destroy Skynet

IIRC Crudas was ignored by Ed M's team as well, even though they commissioned him to do the policy and prepare for the manifesto. Metropolitan Labour just does not want to hear his message that there are Labour voters who value "flag, faith, community and family"

Did his review ever see the light of day? I remember all that bollocks by Ed about commissioning all those long term reviews and I don't remember any stand out policies from the GE campaign that showed any real novel thinking.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, indeed.

But the odds on a second referendum must be long. The only credible ways I can see one occurring is if a Conservative Leaver gets the top job, or if UKIP gains sufficient electoral power (not necessarily a swathe of MPs, but being a big enough threat to shift the terms of debate) to force it into manifestos.

Sean_F

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
'0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband.'
You have totally ignored my point that party % shares for both Labour and the Tories were artificially high in 1959 - simply because in hundreds of constituencies there were only two candidates standing.The effect of having well over 600 Liberal candidates in the field - rather than just over 200 in 1959 - would have knocked circa 5% off the % vote share for both main parties.In effect, both Labour and the Tories received many second preference votes in the absence of Liberal and other candi

You can make as many excuses as you want for Miliband (and of course the Liberals in the 1950s would have affected the Tories and Labour equally) and had the election just been in England and Wales in 2015 there is a chance Ed Miliband would have survived. It was not though and Ed Miliband got a significantly worse result than Gaitskill in terms of MPs, had Gaitskill only won 232 MPs as Ed Miliband did and not the 258 he did win I doubt he would have survived either

I have simply provided you with a few facts - some of which you appear to have been ignorant.As for the limited number of Liberal candidates in the 1950s affecting both major parties, that is apoint that I have already made to you twice.Moreover, albeit to a lesser extent, it continued to be the case in the 1960s when the number of Liberal candidates peaked at 365 in 1964.Only since October 1974 have they contested pretty well every seat on the same basis as the two major parties.

As I have already said the Liberals would have taken from both major parties, the number of MPs they held would likely have been little different. The key point which you have completely ignored is that Ed Miliband only got 232 MPs to and Wales only Miliband may have survived but it was not so he went!

I don't believe that Milliband was blamed for Labour's troubles in Scotland.

He lost 39 MPs there as leader of the party, who else was there to blame? Regardless of what others may have thought he clearly thought he was to blame as he resigned the day after the election

The Leaders of Scottish Labour over a generation were -and are - to blame!

SLAB built their dominance by arguing that it was illegitimate for left wing Scotland to be ruled by right wing England, and that argument cam back to destroy them, once a more authentically nationalist an left wing party emerged.

Theuniondivvie

rottenborough said:

PlatoSaid said:

Good piece from Lord Owen on why half the electorate are looking to Leave.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/focus/all-we-have-to-fear-is-fear-itself-wscs8jpqt

Is this Lord Owen chap in some way related to a David Owen, who left Labour to form the SNP in the 1980s in major part because of the party's anti-eu policies?

His commitment to Scottish independence is legendary.

rottenborough

Indigo said:

HYUFD said:

Tony said:

SeanT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

To support Phil's article, John Pienaar on R4 today reported hearing from Labour (REMAIN) Mps that they were finding a surprising number of LEAVE supporters on the doorstep.
Since Pienaar is known to be close to Labour (offered a job in Ed's time), why would it be in REMAIN's interest to mislead John on that? Having heard that and read Phil's report I am now prepared to also state that I have also found >50% of Labour voters supporting LEAVE on doorstep in canvassing. Albeit in working class areas and running at 60/40 for LEAVE where they have an opinion.

If Labour voters break anything like 60/40 LEAVE then LEAVE wins.

Imho We're going to see an unprecedented working class turnout for leave. People who don't vote ever ever. The Labour remain 70/30 in polls is all ABC1 liberal luvvies.

All those AB1 Luvvies will turn out to vote too

Maybe.

Remain MPs might be misleading Pienaar, as the most important thing now is to make sure Remainers don't think it is in the bag and therefore don't bother voting. Leave will win this on turn-out of their more passionate supporters. As I keep saying complacency from Remain is a disaster.

My bets remain on leave.

PlatoSaid

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, Cruddas seems like a fairly intelligent chap. Which is probably why he's being totally ignored by Corbyn et al.

Mr. Urquhart, that would make the ending of a Terminator film a bit less exciting.

"Quick, John! Destroy Skynet!"

"I can't, that would violate the European convention on human rights!"

Skynet is an American company, not sure how the ECHR applies to them.

Plus if you've seen Terminator: Genisys, no way John Connor will destroy Skynet

IIRC Crudas was ignored by Ed M's team as well, even though they commissioned him to do the policy and prepare for the manifesto. Metropolitan Labour just does not want to hear his message that there are Labour voters who value "flag, faith, community and family"

Glassman got a peerage for Blue Labour and then immediately ignored for exactly those opinions.