For all those who think they know what's going to happen take note:
' There is also the Democrats’ advantage in the electoral college, the fact that Trump doesn’t have much campaign money and virtually no campaign infrastructure and the fact that many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from him. Indeed, it’s so hard to see how Trump can win that the real issue for 2016 may not be the White House, but rather Congress, which Republicans currently control and, in the case of an electoral bloodbath for the GOP, could potentially lose. If that were to happen, Hillary Clinton would have a Democratic Congress and the opportunity to push through dozens of pieces of progressive legislation.
Ironically, Trump’s rise, rather than signalling a turn toward nativist, authoritarian politics in the US, could, in the electorate’s rejection of him, usher in a more progressive political era. '
Betting on politics reminds you that everything is possible, though perhaps improbable. I suspect it is the non-punters who are most certain that X will happen or Y will not, because they do not have to consider the price at which they will back (or lay) Trump or Corbyn.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Polls consistently ovestimate support for a party being given a big lead .We saw this at the 1983 election when eve of poll projections gave the Tories leads in excess of 20% compared with the outcome of a lead of 15.2%. We saw the same thing back in 1966 - in 1997 - and 2001.I don't take Local by election results at all seriously but there is not really any sign at all - beyond some good results in Scotland - of what the national polls are implying. I suspect pollsters are picking up quite a few Tory leaning Doubters presently giving May the benefit of the doubt but who could not be relied upon in a General Election.
The most remarkable thing about the local elections - especially the mass scheduled elections, rather than by-elections - is how well the Government is actually doing. The Opposition is not picking up hundreds of seats, as one might typically expect when faced with a Government in mid-term and with complex problems to deal with. Nor does Theresa May have to put in a stellar performance - just so long as the public views it as significantly better than that of the Leader of the Opposition, which most of those who express an opinion appear to continue to do.
"Richmond LibDems have an anti-Brexit candidate who wants Brexit to go ahead, an anti-Heathrow expansion candidate whose husband helped expand Heathrow…" Oh dear.
Despite all the unpredictability swirling around 21st Century electoral contests in the western world, it seems as if the PB consensus is that Paddypower may as well pay out now on a British General Election still three and a half years away?
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
I see Bayrou is in to 'only' 230 from 500 this morning.
With Macron at 18, Valls at 42 and Montebourg at 90 I do wonder if there's not good value on a leftist. With so long to go and with things being so unpredictable surely one of them will come good at least for use as a trading bet ?
I'd Bayrou a Leftist? He was a minister in the last Juppe administration.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
I just ran the numbers from Mike's header in the previous thread as if it were VI instead of leadership approval.
If those numbers translated into votes according to voter turnout by age group at the referendum and using demographic numbers by age group, then May would get 44.7% and Corbyn 20.9%
Perhaps the pollsters aren't biasing towards the Tories enough? Particularly if Mike is right that it it leader approval ratings that drive voting.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Labour polled 31.2% under Milliband so circa 32% hardly implies a big increase in support. I would expect some drift from the Greens and UKIP and a fair bit of churn beyond that!
Martin Boon's commentary on this poll from the ICM website is worth a read. Particularly noteworthy are the following, re: the leaders...
"Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings can only be described as abysmal. One in five (20%) think he’s doing a good job (including a chunk of Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem voters whose observations are probably based on irony) but 54% say bad job, implying a net approval rating of -34."
"There are likely darker days to come for the Prime Minister, but she remains in solid positive territory with a net +22 rating."
"Tim Farron’s performance (-19) compares to that of Nick Clegg at about the same time in the cycle."
I imagine Farron's figures are flattered by most people not knowing who he is.
I predict that Clegg will be back in charge after next GE.
Unlikely. After the GE Clegg will probably not be an MP.
If the LDs are on 12%, and Lab on 28% (not unrealistic guesstimstes), he'd hold the new Sheffield seat. If the gap between the parties is more than 20%, he loses.
Clegg no longer has the Deputy PM title and LDs will not be able to pile in resources next time. Less cash and fewer bodies.
Wait. The LibDems will have a lot more money than last time (they not have Short money), their membership has more than doubled, they will likely have at least 50% more councillors, and they'll only be defending 8 seats rather than 55.
For all those who think they know what's going to happen take note:
' There is also the Democrats’ advantage in the electoral college, the fact that Trump doesn’t have much campaign money and virtually no campaign infrastructure and the fact that many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from him. Indeed, it’s so hard to see how Trump can win that the real issue for 2016 may not be the White House, but rather Congress, which Republicans currently control and, in the case of an electoral bloodbath for the GOP, could potentially lose. If that were to happen, Hillary Clinton would have a Democratic Congress and the opportunity to push through dozens of pieces of progressive legislation.
Ironically, Trump’s rise, rather than signalling a turn toward nativist, authoritarian politics in the US, could, in the electorate’s rejection of him, usher in a more progressive political era. '
Betting on politics reminds you that everything is possible, though perhaps improbable. I suspect it is the non-punters who are most certain that X will happen or Y will not, because they do not have to consider the price at which they will back (or lay) Trump or Corbyn.
I think that's quite a profound point you make.
The entire point of why I, a non-punter, come to this site ...
' We will cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme '
' We will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing '
' We will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape '
' We will get 250,000 under-25 years-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities '
' We will set tough rules for government spending and borrowing and ensure low inflation and strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible to make all families better off '
By 2005 he was promising:
Your family better off Your family treated better and faster Your child achieving more Your country's borders protected Your community safer Your children with the best start
Revealing to see he was already mentioning the immigration issue eleven years ago.
I see Bayrou is in to 'only' 230 from 500 this morning.
With Macron at 18, Valls at 42 and Montebourg at 90 I do wonder if there's not good value on a leftist. With so long to go and with things being so unpredictable surely one of them will come good at least for use as a trading bet ?
I'd Bayrou a Leftist? He was a minister in the last Juppe administration.
I think Bayrou is more of a centrist than left, very similar to Macron which is why there is talk of Bayrou pulling out to give Macron a better shot.
Martin Boon's commentary on this poll from the ICM website is worth a read. Particularly noteworthy are the following, re: the leaders...
"Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings can only be described as abysmal. One in five (20%) think he’s doing a good job (including a chunk of Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem voters whose observations are probably based on irony) but 54% say bad job, implying a net approval rating of -34."
"There are likely darker days to come for the Prime Minister, but she remains in solid positive territory with a net +22 rating."
"Tim Farron’s performance (-19) compares to that of Nick Clegg at about the same time in the cycle."
I imagine Farron's figures are flattered by most people not knowing who he is.
I predict that Clegg will be back in charge after next GE.
Unlikely. After the GE Clegg will probably not be an MP.
If the LDs are on 12%, and Lab on 28% (not unrealistic guesstimstes), he'd hold the new Sheffield seat. If the gap between the parties is more than 20%, he loses.
Clegg no longer has the Deputy PM title and LDs will not be able to pile in resources next time. Less cash and fewer bodies.
Wait. The LibDems will have a lot more money than last time (they not have Short money), their membership has more than doubled, they will likely have at least 50% more councillors, and they'll only be defending 8 seats rather than 55.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Labour polled 31.2% under Milliband so circa 32% hardly implies a big increase in support. I would expect some drift from the Greens and UKIP and a fair bit of churn beyond that!
Corbyn's approval ratings are worse than Foot, Brown and Miliband, aren't they?
It's reasonable to assume that will translate into poorer party performance.
Virtually every poll is showing that between three and four million - yep, three to four million - 2015 Labour voters will not commit to backing Corbyn's Labour.
There aren't that number of voters going spare to make up the difference to bring him level with Ed.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Polls consistently ovestimate support for a party being given a big lead .We saw this at the 1983 election when eve of poll projections gave the Tories leads in excess of 20% compared with the outcome of a lead of 15.2%. We saw the same thing back in 1966 - in 1997 - and 2001.I don't take Local by election results at all seriously but there is not really any sign at all - beyond some good results in Scotland - of what the national polls are implying. I suspect pollsters are picking up quite a few Tory leaning Doubters presently giving May the benefit of the doubt but who could not be relied upon in a General Election.
The most remarkable thing about the local elections - especially the mass scheduled elections, rather than by-elections - is how well the Government is actually doing. The Opposition is not picking up hundreds of seats, as one might typically expect when faced with a Government in mid-term and with complex problems to deal with. Nor does Theresa May have to put in a stellar performance - just so long as the public views it as significantly better than that of the Leader of the Opposition, which most of those who express an opinion appear to continue to do.
Government performance at Local Elections needs to be analysed in the context of that electoral cycle. The seats contested last May had previously been fought in May 2012 when the Coalition was probably at its most unpopular. By some margin it represented Labour's best performance in the last Parliament , and it was widely expected that this year the Tories would recover some of the losses then suffered whilst Labour suffered losses of 150 - 200 seats. In practice, Labour only lost about 20 seats whilst the Tories went on to lose a further 50 or so!
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Labour polled 31.2% under Milliband so circa 32% hardly implies a big increase in support. I would expect some drift from the Greens and UKIP and a fair bit of churn beyond that!
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
Whilst I'm certain a lot of voters would love an excuse to not vote Tory for most of us there is simply no sane alternative. That said if the current apparent incompetence, disorganisation and micromanagement inspired inertia continues it will very definitely be a vote through gritted teeth.
The loons on the right of the Tory party, in the euphoria of Brexit, have very swiftly forgotten they are not popular and were responsible for the defeat in 1997 and the elections that followed. A vaguely capable opposition will crucify them post 2020, particularly if Brexit is a shambles or even if it's just difficult ecomically for a few years.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Labour polled 31.2% under Milliband so circa 32% hardly implies a big increase in support. I would expect some drift from the Greens and UKIP and a fair bit of churn beyond that!
Corbyn's approval ratings are worse than Foot, Brown and Miliband, aren't they?
It's reasonable to assume that will translate into poorer party performance.
Virtually every poll is showing that between three and four million - yep, three to four million - 2015 Labour voters will not commit to backing Corbyn's Labour.
There aren't that number of voters going spare to make up the difference to bring him level with Ed.
I am not sure that his ratings are lower than Foot's - though I have not checked.
' It’s in the nature of collective hysteria that no single act can be adduced to prove its existence. But there is a fin de siecle, self-destructive, decadent craziness about Conference 2007. Somewhere in the wads of twenty somethings and thirtywouldbes jamming the chintzy Bournemouth bars long after they’re normally silent lurks the jitterbugging desperation of the Twenties before the Crash, Berlin between the wars, London as Imperial Glory died with its queen. The collective psyche of this group of individuals who’ve never had it so good has rarely been so uncertain. '
' Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain. '
' That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready. '
He got the mood right (before the Crash) and the conclusion(s) wrong - heralding another decade of strong Labour rule and 'They are ready'.
Pride comes before a fall. Despite most large electoral victories really being large electoral losses of the other side, the winners always seem to believe it was all their own virtues,hence the hubris.
If it actually came to a General Election I could see Labour ending up at circa 32%. The Tories are still benefitting from a May honeymoon effect and from people giving her the benefit of the doubt.Polling adjustments since May 2015 may well have been carried too far and now fail to allow for the likelihood of a higher turnout.. If anything,therefore, I suspect the pollsters are now understating Labour.
1. Polls consistently under-estimate the right-wing option in national votes. No particular reason to suppose this has changed. 2. 32% would imply meaningful increase in support relative to Labour under Ed Miliband. Where are all the extra voters meant to come from? Unlikely that any voters positioned to right of Labour under Miliband are going to want to support Labour under Corbyn.
Labour polled 31.2% under Milliband so circa 32% hardly implies a big increase in support. I would expect some drift from the Greens and UKIP and a fair bit of churn beyond that!
30.4 not 31.2
No Sir - Labour's GB share in 2015 was 31.2%. You may be thinking of the UK figure of 30.5% - but the pollsters always give us GB figures .
I'm not advocating for Blair. He was a political collosus before he was a malfeasant war criminal. However the article goes a bit further than the Sunday Times and says he's ending his For Profit work. Which suggests he's serious.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
I think you're correct.
A 1979 style result for the LibDems.
But it will be an awful long way from that to a 1997 result let alone a 2005 result.
Has this Paddy Power market been mentioned on here?
Britain to be a member of the EU at the end of 2020:
Yes 5/4 No 4/7
That suggests a pretty significant chance of Brexit not happening - or at least not happening anywhere near the currently expected timetable.
That 4/7 would be value, as long as they would pay out on the day we leave and not try to hold on until Dec 2020. But I can usually make more cash than 4/7 in five four days watching a Test match.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
I think you're correct.
A 1979 style result for the LibDems.
But it will be an awful long way from that to a 1997 result let alone a 2005 result.
Richard you didn't write a letter to The Times the other day did you?
Clean Brexit please. Then we can stop all this Tony Blair, remoaning, Teresa May has been warned, fiendishly difficult, 'centrist' foolery. We can have left, right, and centre (there will always be mushy mediocrity), and they can be based, as they were before, on left, right and centre policy platforms, not on 'centrism' entailing the necessity of giving over lawmaking to a supranational body. And people will wonder what all the bloody fuss was about.
One of the great upsides of the referendum that we should all welcome is that the poor, put-upon writers at the Guardian have been given a fresh mandate after spending six years writing articles about austerity and NHS winter crises.
It must have been hell for them - factory farming these articles like bespectacled, sandal wearing, battery chickens.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
I think you're correct.
A 1979 style result for the LibDems.
But it will be an awful long way from that to a 1997 result let alone a 2005 result.
Richard you didn't write a letter to The Times the other day did you?
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
I think you're correct.
A 1979 style result for the LibDems.
But it will be an awful long way from that to a 1997 result let alone a 2005 result.
Richard you didn't write a letter to The Times the other day did you?
It wasn't me - I deny all knowledge.
No.
Was it a good letter ?
Not quite geopolitically earth shattering; it was about velvet collars on coats and I remember an exchange about the subject on here recently, I had thought involving you!
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
One of the great upsides of the referendum that we should all welcome is that the poor, put-upon writers at the Guardian have been given a fresh mandate after spending six years writing articles about austerity and NHS winter crises.
It must have been hell for them - factory farming these articles like bespectacled, sandal wearing, battery chickens.
They are however going to have to write nice things about Tony Blair!
He got the mood right (before the Crash) and the conclusion(s) wrong - heralding another decade of strong Labour rule and 'They are ready'.
And yet, as we saw with people like James Purnell and David Miliband fleeing when the going got tough, they weren't ready. They'd never had to face a real political fight in their whole lives and when it came they were ill prepared. At the other extreme you could argue that Blair wasn't ready in 1997. He'd never tasted power before so when it came, he was so paranoid about losing it that he froze until acting out abroad.
Probably the ideal combination to be really ready is to have a combination of having experienced major defeat but also having seen life in government before. Like Thatcher for example.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
I think you're correct.
A 1979 style result for the LibDems.
But it will be an awful long way from that to a 1997 result let alone a 2005 result.
Richard you didn't write a letter to The Times the other day did you?
It wasn't me - I deny all knowledge.
No.
Was it a good letter ?
Not quite geopolitically earth shattering; it was about velvet collars on coats and I remember an exchange about the subject on here recently, I had thought involving you!
Edit: a Richard wrote the letter.
I can't place the discussion but then PB is so wide-ranging I may have been involved.
It does sound bizarrely interesting but I have no access to the Times website.
One of the great upsides of the referendum that we should all welcome is that the poor, put-upon writers at the Guardian have been given a fresh mandate after spending six years writing articles about austerity and NHS winter crises.
It must have been hell for them - factory farming these articles like bespectacled, sandal wearing, battery chickens.
They are however going to have to write nice things about Tony Blair!
Nobody has had practice of doing that for a long, long time.....
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
I shall be surprised if the Tories manage 39% - never mind 43%. Even today when May still has a honeymoon they appear to be at 42%.
Just wondering. What if this supposed 2nd referendum plan is real, it works and we remain.
What on Earth will happen to British politics then? 2017 might make 2016 look quiet.
A lot of big ifs in that.
Indeed, but the current golden rule of politics is "shit happens". Just when you think you've seen it all, off we go descending to some yet undiscovered layer of hell.
By the decades end I confidently expect Farage to be elected Pope in a live reality TV show broadcast from the Vatican Trump hotel sponsored by Southern Trains.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
That's pretty much exactly my view: three seats in Scotland, two in South West London, one in Wales, Westmoreland, Sheffield, Cambridge ....
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
I shall be surprised if the Tories manage 39% - never mind 43%. Even today when May still has a honeymoon they appear to be at 42%.
If May delivers a half decent exit from the EU, 43% at the next election will be well on the low side.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
I shall be surprised if the Tories manage 39% - never mind 43%. Even today when May still has a honeymoon they appear to be at 42%.
If May delivers a half decent exit from the EU, 43% at the next election will be well on the low side.
And if she simply gets unlucky and the Uk enters recession in 2018?
Probably the ideal combination to be really ready is to have a combination of having experienced major defeat but also having seen life in government before. Like Thatcher for example.
Just wondering. What if this supposed 2nd referendum plan is real, it works and we remain.
What on Earth will happen to British politics then? 2017 might make 2016 look quiet.
A lot of big ifs in that.
Indeed, but the current golden rule of politics is "shit happens". Just when you think you've seen it all, off we go descending to some yet undiscovered layer of hell.
By the decades end I confidently expect Farage to be elected Pope in a live reality TV show broadcast from the Vatican Trump hotel sponsored by Southern Trains.
You had me until that nonsense about Southern Trains.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
I shall be surprised if the Tories manage 39% - never mind 43%. Even today when May still has a honeymoon they appear to be at 42%.
If May delivers a half decent exit from the EU, 43% at the next election will be well on the low side.
The low side will probably be 38, the high side is probably 51 (38+UKIP).
There is though a worse case scenario if Hammond crashes the economy and Brexit is postponed, in that case anything could happen except a Tory victory.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
That's pretty much exactly my view: three seats in Scotland, two in South West London, one in Wales, Westmoreland, Sheffield, Cambridge ....
He got the mood right (before the Crash) and the conclusion(s) wrong - heralding another decade of strong Labour rule and 'They are ready'.
And yet, as we saw with people like James Purnell and David Miliband fleeing when the going got tough, they weren't ready. They'd never had to face a real political fight in their whole lives and when it came they were ill prepared. At the other extreme you could argue that Blair wasn't ready in 1997. He'd never tasted power before so when it came, he was so paranoid about losing it that he froze until acting out abroad.
Probably the ideal combination to be really ready is to have a combination of having experienced major defeat but also having seen life in government before. Like Thatcher for example.
I am reading Carol Dweck's book, Mindset, at the moment. It goes directly to this point. Basically, in her thesis, people either have 'fixed' mindset (they believe that their character, personality and capabilities such as intelligence are all givens and cannot be changed) or they have a 'growth' mindset, in which regardless of starting aptitude and ability, through dint of grit, hard work and bounce-back-ability, you can greatly improve your lot, your personality, capabilities and even intelligence.
Reverses and defeats disable people with a fixed mindset. They are seen as learning and improvement opportunities by the growth mindset people.
As a behaviourist, she has data to support her view, although I have not got to that point in the book yet.
I must say, as I get older I become ever more convinced that intelligence is not a key indicator of success but that persistence is. Hence I am more than somewhat amenable to her thesis.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
Bath fits the bill there then . I would also add a few like Cheadle and Cornwall North where the new Conservative MPS seem particularly unpopular
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
That's pretty much exactly my view: three seats in Scotland, two in South West London, one in Wales, Westmoreland, Sheffield, Cambridge ....
Completely O/T (and apologies if previously posted) but the writer, William Trevor, died today aged 88.
To my mind he was one of the greatest writers in English of our time, far better than most Booker prize winners. His forte was the short story but his novels are superb too. No-one wrote so well about evil and how it hides in apparent ordinariness. He wrote about ordinary people, the disappointments of life, the choices not made, the hopes and fears of the every day and he did so with great compassion and humanity and moral clarity. And he could be funny too.
His characters were not characters but real people. He wrote about us, about the intensity that lurks even in the most apparently unremarkable life.
He came from the Anglo-Irish tradition that has given us so much great literature but he did not just limit himself to Ireland. Once upon a time the BBC used to film many of his stories.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
That's pretty much exactly my view: three seats in Scotland, two in South West London, one in Wales, Westmoreland, Sheffield, Cambridge ....
I still expect Labour to hold Cambridge!
University seats are are always an incredibly hard call, as you have such turnover of the electorate. The locals over the next few years sloths give us a clue.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
I shall be surprised if the Tories manage 39% - never mind 43%. Even today when May still has a honeymoon they appear to be at 42%.
If May delivers a half decent exit from the EU, 43% at the next election will be well on the low side.
And if she simply gets unlucky and the Uk enters recession in 2018?
How much difference, short of a complete catastrophe, is this likely to make, given the state of the Opposition?
The Conservatives' *floor* is probably nearly everybody who voted for them in 2015 and, given the state of Labour and the return of former Tory voters from Ukip, it could be significantly higher than that.
As a crude oversimplification I divide the country into Remainia, Brexitshire and Leaverstan. Remainia will continue to thrive under Brexit for the reasons it thrived under EU membership. EG the Google and Facebook investments. Brexitshire will have problems under Brexit. But as rural Tory areas they will be looked after by Tory governments and have high social capital.
Leaverstan will be shafted by Brexit ( Nissan being a Canary snatched from the Coal Mine in time ) and have no one to care. The Tories will never need the sort of Labour seats these are and their votes only count in close national referendums. It's safe to say we won't be having anymore referendums for decades. So Leaverstan is UKIP's big growth area. As all the forces that drove Brexit grind remorselessly on and the logic of FPTP reasserts it's self the capacity for UKIP to do to Labour what the SNP did to them in Scotland is real.
You seem keen to ignore the existence of Remainastan.
Inner city shitholes are still inner city shitholes even if they voted Remain.
Yeh, Merseyside, Glasgow, Manchester, South Armagh and West Belfast aren't economic powerhouses.
'The 20 towns and cities in Britain that pay the most tax
10. Liverpool, Tax paid: £4.4m The service industry plays a major role in helping Liverpool become one of the largest economies in the UK. The film industry provides jobs - and taxes - as the area is the second most filmed city in Britain outside London.
4. Glasgow, Tax paid: £8.25m Paying over £2m taxes than Edinburgh, the city of Glasgow comes in fourth place on the list. It has the largest economy in Scotland and has high employment in business and financial sectors.
2. Manchester, Tax paid: £16.51m Despite being second on the list, Manchester’s tax haul has grown by just 1% over the past decade. Two of the country’s busiest airports are located in the northern town.'
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
That's pretty much exactly my view: three seats in Scotland, two in South West London, one in Wales, Westmoreland, Sheffield, Cambridge ....
I still expect Labour to hold Cambridge!
As an aside, there may be a new labour candidate, which also complicates things.
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
Cambridge, Edinburgh West, Fife NE, maybe a Highland seat.
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
That's pretty much exactly my view: three seats in Scotland, two in South West London, one in Wales, Westmoreland, Sheffield, Cambridge ....
Bath, Cheltenham, Lewes and St Ives are possibles as well, particularly the first two.
Completely O/T (and apologies if previously posted) but the writer, William Trevor, died today aged 88.
To my mind he was one of the greatest writers in English of our time, far better than most Booker prize winners. His forte was the short story but his novels are superb too. No-one wrote so well about evil and how it hides in apparent ordinariness. He wrote about ordinary people, the disappointments of life, the choices not made, the hopes and fears of the every day and he did so with great compassion and humanity and moral clarity. And he could be funny too.
His characters were not characters but real people. He wrote about us, about the intensity that lurks even in the most apparently unremarkable life.
He came from the Anglo-Irish tradition that has given us so much great literature but he did not just limit himself to Ireland. Once upon a time the BBC used to film many of his stories.
If you get a chance do try him.
Thank you. I've got a busy work travel schedule over the next few months, so i shall add to the Kindle list
Weren't PBers only recently saying that this party would overtake Labour within two election cycle? That elections would be 'centre-right vs far-right?' LOL.
Just on the safe side in case the pollsters have messed up their turnout model, in a clean 10/10 certainty to vote (which also is close to the turnout by age in 2015) the results from ICM are:
CON 38 LAB 27 UKIP 11 LD 7 OTH 8
D/K 10
The LD have the biggest problem with certainty to vote and retaining their past voters. Only the Tory vote is rock solid.
Simply the numbers reflect an opposition in turmoil, with lots of non Tory voters being demoralized, not knowing who to vote for or even if it's worth to vote at all.
The LibDems are going to suffer at the next election because of:
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes 2) The loss of tactical votes 3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Ultimately, though, they're likely to be on 12% rather than 8%. That's 50% more votes. I'd be very surprised if that didn't lead to more seats.
But if the Tories are on 43%, those LibDem seats are gong to have to come from Labour or (don't laugh at the back) the SNP.
I shall be surprised if the Tories manage 39% - never mind 43%. Even today when May still has a honeymoon they appear to be at 42%.
If May delivers a half decent exit from the EU, 43% at the next election will be well on the low side.
And if she simply gets unlucky and the Uk enters recession in 2018?
How much difference, short of a complete catastrophe, is this likely to make, given the state of the Opposition?
The Conservatives' *floor* is probably nearly everybody who voted for them in 2015 and, given the state of Labour and the return of former Tory voters from Ukip, it could be significantly higher than that.
I believe your assumption that 2015 represents the Conservative 'floor' is rather optimistic. Many who voted Tory in response to the SNP scare campaign may well not do so again.
Completely O/T (and apologies if previously posted) but the writer, William Trevor, died today aged 88.
To my mind he was one of the greatest writers in English of our time, far better than most Booker prize winners. His forte was the short story but his novels are superb too. No-one wrote so well about evil and how it hides in apparent ordinariness. He wrote about ordinary people, the disappointments of life, the choices not made, the hopes and fears of the every day and he did so with great compassion and humanity and moral clarity. And he could be funny too.
His characters were not characters but real people. He wrote about us, about the intensity that lurks even in the most apparently unremarkable life.
He came from the Anglo-Irish tradition that has given us so much great literature but he did not just limit himself to Ireland. Once upon a time the BBC used to film many of his stories.
If you get a chance do try him.
Never heard of him. But I'll endeavour to read some of his work soon.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/21/tony-blair-hoping-to-revitalise-centre-ground-with-political-comeback?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/800798944125022208
"Richmond LibDems have an anti-Brexit candidate who wants Brexit to go ahead, an anti-Heathrow expansion candidate whose husband helped expand Heathrow…" Oh dear.
1) The loss of incumbency and personal votes
2) The loss of tactical votes
3) The loss of relevancy votes (unless a hung parliament looks likely)
They are likely to gain other votes but in some constituencies they haven't reached their trough yet.
Does his oversized ego really have no self-awareness at all?
If those numbers translated into votes according to voter turnout by age group at the referendum and using demographic numbers by age group, then May would get 44.7% and Corbyn 20.9%
Perhaps the pollsters aren't biasing towards the Tories enough? Particularly if Mike is right that it it leader approval ratings that drive voting.
Britain to be a member of the EU at the end of 2020:
Yes 5/4
No 4/7
That suggests a pretty significant chance of Brexit not happening - or at least not happening anywhere near the currently expected timetable.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/21/pm-warned-transition-brexit-deal-fiendishly-difficult-to-achieve-theresa-may-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
This is literally a yesterday's man who is campaigning on yesterday's issues, and is remembered by the public only for bankruptcy and war.
The entire point of why I, a non-punter, come to this site ...
' We will cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme '
' We will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing '
' We will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape '
' We will get 250,000 under-25 years-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities '
' We will set tough rules for government spending and borrowing and ensure low inflation and strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible to make all families better off '
By 2005 he was promising:
Your family better off
Your family treated better and faster
Your child achieving more
Your country's borders protected
Your community safer
Your children with the best start
Revealing to see he was already mentioning the immigration issue eleven years ago.
"Blair has recruited Jim Murphy, the former Scottish Labour leader "
It's reasonable to assume that will translate into poorer party performance.
Virtually every poll is showing that between three and four million - yep, three to four million - 2015 Labour voters will not commit to backing Corbyn's Labour.
There aren't that number of voters going spare to make up the difference to bring him level with Ed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015
The loons on the right of the Tory party, in the euphoria of Brexit, have very swiftly forgotten they are not popular and were responsible for the defeat in 1997 and the elections that followed.
A vaguely capable opposition will crucify them post 2020, particularly if Brexit is a shambles or even if it's just difficult ecomically for a few years.
Not big on self awareness are they?
Pride comes before a fall. Despite most large electoral victories really being large electoral losses of the other side, the winners always seem to believe it was all their own virtues,hence the hubris.
A 1979 style result for the LibDems.
But it will be an awful long way from that to a 1997 result let alone a 2005 result.
It must have been hell for them - factory farming these articles like bespectacled, sandal wearing, battery chickens.
No.
Was it a good letter ?
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/800809413326098433
Edit: a Richard wrote the letter.
Probably the ideal combination to be really ready is to have a combination of having experienced major defeat but also having seen life in government before. Like Thatcher for example.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/800800581614964736
Its also possible that they make a gain or two from the Conservatives even while the Conservatives are hammering Labour nationally. SW London is the most likely areas for that or in a constituency where a Conservative MP is involved in a scandal.
Literally a who's who of *£@#$!
"Nobody follows grey John Major. Weak!"
An organisation for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBlXZyKC6A
The chances of failure are high, they only need Paddy Ashdown and the circle of greatest living political failures will be complete.
It does sound bizarrely interesting but I have no access to the Times website.
What on Earth will happen to British politics then? 2017 might make 2016 look quiet.
Mr Osborne sees his role exclusively within the Tory party.
By the decades end I confidently expect Farage to be elected Pope in a live reality TV show broadcast from the Vatican Trump hotel sponsored by Southern Trains.
Not again.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/our-towns-and-cities/sheffield/live-flooding-reported-across-sheffield-cars-stranded-trains-cancelled-and-roads-closed-9pm-update-1-8250468
Brown pretty much knee capping any potential leadership rival is one of the reasons Labour finds itself in the hole it is today.
All my trains were cancelled today
There is though a worse case scenario if Hammond crashes the economy and Brexit is postponed, in that case anything could happen except a Tory victory.
With enemies like these who needs friends?
Reverses and defeats disable people with a fixed mindset. They are seen as learning and improvement opportunities by the growth mindset people.
As a behaviourist, she has data to support her view, although I have not got to that point in the book yet.
I must say, as I get older I become ever more convinced that intelligence is not a key indicator of success but that persistence is. Hence I am more than somewhat amenable to her thesis.
To my mind he was one of the greatest writers in English of our time, far better than most Booker prize winners. His forte was the short story but his novels are superb too. No-one wrote so well about evil and how it hides in apparent ordinariness. He wrote about ordinary people, the disappointments of life, the choices not made, the hopes and fears of the every day and he did so with great compassion and humanity and moral clarity. And he could be funny too.
His characters were not characters but real people. He wrote about us, about the intensity that lurks even in the most apparently unremarkable life.
He came from the Anglo-Irish tradition that has given us so much great literature but he did not just limit himself to Ireland. Once upon a time the BBC used to film many of his stories.
If you get a chance do try him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/school-cancels-talk-far-right-trump-cheerleader-milo-yiannopoulos/
The Conservatives' *floor* is probably nearly everybody who voted for them in 2015 and, given the state of Labour and the return of former Tory voters from Ukip, it could be significantly higher than that.
10. Liverpool, Tax paid: £4.4m
The service industry plays a major role in helping Liverpool become one of the largest economies in the UK. The film industry provides jobs - and taxes - as the area is the second most filmed city in Britain outside London.
4. Glasgow, Tax paid: £8.25m
Paying over £2m taxes than Edinburgh, the city of Glasgow comes in fourth place on the list. It has the largest economy in Scotland and has high employment in business and financial sectors.
2. Manchester, Tax paid: £16.51m
Despite being second on the list, Manchester’s tax haul has grown by just 1% over the past decade. Two of the country’s busiest airports are located in the northern town.'
http://tinyurl.com/zqtjoy6
https://twitter.com/NickMiller79/status/800821531773403137