politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON starts 2017 by going straight for the Labour’s jugular in

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON starts 2017 by going straight for the Labour’s jugular in Copeland byelection – Corbyn’s opposition to nuclear

Tory leaflet in Copeland on what looks set to be LAB's weak spot – JC's views on things nuclear Pic via @MrBrownsays pic.twitter.com/oWQiarrzON

Read the full story here

Theuniondivvie

Ding dong

Toms

I wonder what would happen if you put Corbyn and Trump in the same room. Would they annihilate?
Or does the latter even know who the former is?

Essexit

Is Corbyn sensible and restrained enough to keep his head down during the campaign? That matters rather a lot to Labour's chances.

Though I suppose if he doesn't make any appearances the Tories could spin that against Labour quite effectively too. Difficult to judge how this will play out.

MarqueeMark

By accident or design, Copeland is a really horrible by-election for Labour to have to defend whilst Corbyn is leader.

Heh.

foxinsoxuk

Essexit said:

Is Corbyn sensible and restrained enough to keep his head down during the campaign? That matters rather a lot to Labour's chances.

Though I suppose if he doesn't make any appearances the Tories could spin that against Labour quite effectively too. Difficult to judge how this will play out.

All the leading prospective candidates are pro nuclear, so this is certain to be part of the campaign.

It is looking to be a particularly interesting byelection, though I think likely to be coinciding with the locals in May.

Essexit

MarqueeMark said:

By accident or design, Copeland is a really horrible by-election for Labour to have to defend whilst Corbyn is leader.

Heh.

By accident it ain't.

williamglenn

MarqueeMark said:

By accident or design, Copeland is a really horrible by-election for Labour to have to defend whilst Corbyn is leader.

Heh.

It's really fascinating in every respect. Trending Tory for a long time but also tough to imagine a breakthrough in the present climate.

Sean_F

FPT, the Solidus was a very useful gold coin, first minted by Aurelian, and then produced by the Byzantines. It was worth about three weeks' wages, and widely distributed. There are are considerable numbers of them in existence, and they can be had for as little as £200.

Medieval coinage was overwhelmingly struck in silver.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, didn't realise it was first minted by Aurelian. Top chap.

Also, 'little as £200'! I fear you are considerably richer than me, as Harry Enfield never said.

isam

"Greg's Jewish..."

"Hey so was JC!!! You're in great company!"

Name that film

Sean_F

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, didn't realise it was first minted by Aurelian. Top chap.

Also, 'little as £200'! I fear you are considerably richer than me, as Harry Enfield never said.

It's outside my price range too. But, you might imagine that ancient gold coins would be more expensive.
Its value as bullion is about £130.

Your general point is right though, that as people moved away from barter and payment in kind, silver and copper coins were more useful than gold.

Sandpit

MarqueeMark said:

By accident or design, Copeland is a really horrible by-election for Labour to have to defend whilst Corbyn is leader.

Heh.

I wonder if John Woodcock in nearby Barrow is next in line to throw in the towel?

logical_song

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

By accident or design, Copeland is a really horrible by-election for Labour to have to defend whilst Corbyn is leader.

Heh.

It's really fascinating in every respect. Trending Tory for a long time but also tough to imagine a breakthrough in the present climate.

I think that the Tories should have this one in the bag. The fact that Labour probably aren't calling it til May means the Tories have a long time to get their message across - and, as shown above, it's a great message for this constituency.

stodge

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

Quincel

isam said:

"Greg's Jewish..."

"Hey so was JC!!! You're in great company!"

Name that film

Meet the Parents? I seem to remember a scene with an ex-boyfriend who's become a carpenter and calls Jesus 'JC'.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, that is a good point. In those terms, it's less expensive than might be expected.

It's one of the reasons Vikings went to Mikligard. The Varangian Guard was rather more loyal than native soldiers, and pretty handy with their weapons.

SouthamObserver

RIP Mario Soares - anti-fascist & Portuguese patriot who played pivotal role in bringing down the Salazar dictatorship. A great man.

Muere Mário Soares, expresidente de Portugal
http://elpais.com/internacional/2017/01/07/actualidad/1483804308_975289.html

SouthamObserver

Soares was imprisoned by dictators, but then led Portugal as PM twice. He created its social security system, amplified public education system and too country into the EU. His achievements explain why social democracy is in crisis in Europe - so much of the heavy lifting has been done. Portugal has been transformed almost beyond recognition in the space of a generation. The socialists of the 60s and 70s - who opposed Salazar and the Communists - have seen just about every major thing they wanted to achieve come to pass. It's a similar story with PSOE in Spain.

isam

Quincel said:

isam said:

"Greg's Jewish..."

"Hey so was JC!!! You're in great company!"

Name that film

Meet the Parents? I seem to remember a scene with an ex-boyfriend who's become a carpenter and calls Jesus 'JC'.

Correct!

dr_spyn

A minx trolls.

https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/817785847579897856

Burnham.

Sandpit

dr_spyn said:

A minx trolls.

https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/817785847579897856

Burnham.

Brilliant! Great to see MPs with a sense of humour

foxinsoxuk

dr_spyn said:

A minx trolls.

https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/817785847579897856

Burnham.

Sounded a good game. New defensive midfielder MOTM on Radio Leicester sounds just what we needed to replace Kante.

Top trolling from @LeicesterLiz

Chris_A

Can we all now agree that the government is willfully destroying the NHS whatever the crap Hunt constantly comes out with about wanting to make it the safest ever?

foxinsoxuk

Chris_A said:

Can we all now agree that the government is willfully destroying the NHS whatever the crap Hunt constantly comes out with about wanting to make it the safest ever?

I wouldn't agree. Things are very strained, but I have seen worse in my 25 years in the NHS.

It is a pressure cooker with no safety valve though not yet about to explode.

The £350 million extra per week can't come soon enough though.

Chris_A

foxinsoxuk said:

Chris_A said:

Can we all now agree that the government is willfully destroying the NHS whatever the crap Hunt constantly comes out with about wanting to make it the safest ever?

I wouldn't agree. Things are very strained, but I have seen worse in my 25 years in the NHS.

It is a pressure cooker with no safety valve though not yet about to explode.

The £350 million extra per week can't come soon enough though.

We'll have to pray that flu stays low - we haven't got much at the moment as Hunt certainly hasn't any plans to make things better. We were cancelling electives at Christmas so the consultants could try and clear the wards to make space.

partypoliticalorphan

The Conservative team out leafleting today - or at least turning up for the photo to polish their CV for the candidates' list here

https://facebook.com/simon.renwick.505?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

foxinsoxuk

Chris_A said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Chris_A said:

Can we all now agree that the government is willfully destroying the NHS whatever the crap Hunt constantly comes out with about wanting to make it the safest ever?

I wouldn't agree. Things are very strained, but I have seen worse in my 25 years in the NHS.

It is a pressure cooker with no safety valve though not yet about to explode.

The £350 million extra per week can't come soon enough though.

We'll have to pray that flu stays low - we haven't got much at the moment as Hunt certainly hasn't any plans to make things better. We were cancelling electives at Christmas so the consultants could try and clear the wards to make space.

Sure, but that has been normal for most of my working life, from my first post in the late eighties. It is a very inefficient way of coping with extra winter demands as Surgeon, Anaesthetist and theatre team are all twiddling their thumbs as the list is cancelled for no beds or ICU space. It is of course both stressful for patients and delaying care and treatment. In my own Trust these cancellations are an order of magnitude higher than cancelled operations from the strike, though the press is strangely silent on this issue.

The safety valve was always that waiting lists would go up, but now that is gone as the Trust is fined unless any cancellation is not admitted within 28 days. Our managers are pulling their hair out when on for beds. There is now no safety valve.

My own Trust management are excellent and I have full confidence in them, but with our proposed STP reduces the number of beds in the Trust by over 100 in the next 5 years. Brexit has damaged recruitment and retention with considerable numbers of Medical and Nursing staff going back.

Without sounding like Monty Pythons Black Knight - I have seen worse.

another_richard

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

another_richard

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Chris_A

foxinsoxuk said:

Chris_A said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Chris_A said:

Can we all now agree that the government is willfully destroying the NHS whatever the crap Hunt constantly comes out with about wanting to make it the safest ever?

I wouldn't agree. Things are very strained, but I have seen worse in my 25 years in the NHS.

It is a pressure cooker with no safety valve though not yet about to explode.

The £350 million extra per week can't come soon enough though.

We'll have to pray that flu stays low - we haven't got much at the moment as Hunt certainly hasn't any plans to make things better. We were cancelling electives at Christmas so the consultants could try and clear the wards to make space.

Sure, but that has been normal for most of my working life, from my first post in the late eighties. It is a very inefficient way of coping with extra winter demands as Surgeon, Anaesthetist and theatre team are all twiddling their thumbs as the list is cancelled for no beds or ICU space. It is of course both stressful for patients and delaying care and treatment. In my own Trust these cancellations are an order of magnitude higher than cancelled operations from the strike, though the press is strangely silent on this issue.

The safety valve was always that waiting lists would go up, but now that is gone as the Trust is fined unless any cancellation is not admitted within 28 days. Our managers are pulling their hair out when on for beds. There is now no safety valve.

My own Trust management are excellent and I have full confidence in them, but with our proposed STP reduces the number of beds in the Trust by over 100 in the next 5 years. Brexit has damaged recruitment and retention with considerable numbers of Medical and Nursing staff going back.

Without sounding like Monty Pythons Black Knight - I have seen worse.

Yes we open extra beds as we have lots of shut wards. Our new PFI hospital will have fewer beds than we have at the moment and won't have the mothballed space when required. Yes without adequate input into social care - and Hunt and Hammond both fluffed it in the Autumn statement - the situation is not going to improve in time for when we move in.

But don't worry about staff - Jeremy has a plan and will warp time so that all his new recruits will up to consultant standard when we leave EU.

isam

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

MarqueeMark

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

"Polite Tories"?? Now THAT is a new beastie!

another_richard

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

"Polite Tories"?? Now THAT is a new beastie!

Well we know you wouldn't vote LibDem whether through politeness or not.

But I think there was almost a habit in the 1980s and 1990s that people voted LibDem in byelections because it was seen as a 'nice' thing to do.

Quincel

isam said:

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

Agree that if Tories win Copeland it may well be on this scenario, or at least a negligible share gain. I can't shake the feeling that Corbyn has done pretty well in Labour-held by-elections so far, and this hype about Copeland will be a repeat of the Oldham excitement. Time will tell.

justin124

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

isam

Quincel said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

Agree that if Tories win Copeland it may well be on this scenario, or at least a negligible share gain. I can't shake the feeling that Corbyn has done pretty well in Labour-held by-elections so far, and this hype about Copeland will be a repeat of the Oldham excitement. Time will tell.

That Oldham by election was so obviously a Labour hold,. the UKIP hype was a bit silly when you look at the demographic

Did you get a job in the betting game?

foxinsoxuk

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

"Polite Tories"?? Now THAT is a new beastie!

They eat their roast babies with most refined manners.

MarqueeMark

another_richard said:

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

"Polite Tories"?? Now THAT is a new beastie!

Well we know you wouldn't vote LibDem whether through politeness or not.

But I think there was almost a habit in the 1980s and 1990s that people voted LibDem in byelections because it was seen as a 'nice' thing to do.

Quite the opposite. It was to give the finger to the Establishment (represented by the Tories, who were in an unbroken 18 years of rule). They were the Trumpsters of their time.

Sandpit

justin124 said:

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

Betfair also have the Tories at evens, but with Lab at 6/4. I still think it's 50/50 and there could be some surprises to come in terms of the date and candidates. I reckon Labour will try and hold the by-election on May 4th to avoid the Tories being able to throw the kitchen sink at it, and it's quite possible we'll see a strong local independent or two standing.

Lab at 6/4 is probably value at this point.

RobD

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

Betfair also have the Tories at evens, but with Lab at 6/4. I still think it's 50/50 and there could be some surprises to come in terms of the date and candidates. I reckon Labour will try and hold the by-election on May 4th to avoid the Tories being able to throw the kitchen sink at it, and it's quite possible we'll see a strong local independent or two standing.

Lab at 6/4 is probably value at this point.

I thought the MP was resigning in Jan? That'd be a long time to hold it off.

Quincel

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

Agree that if Tories win Copeland it may well be on this scenario, or at least a negligible share gain. I can't shake the feeling that Corbyn has done pretty well in Labour-held by-elections so far, and this hype about Copeland will be a repeat of the Oldham excitement. Time will tell.

That Oldham by election was so obviously a Labour hold,. the UKIP hype was a bit silly when you look at the demographic

Did you get a job in the betting game?

I'm still in the law.

And to actually answer your earlier question instead of vaguely dodging it, the last by-election gain in GB where the winning party lost vote share was Birmingham Northfield in 1982. Labour barely won the by-election after barely losing in the general, due to them slipping marginally less than the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Northfield_by-election,_1982

foxinsoxuk

Quincel said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

Agree that if Tories win Copeland it may well be on this scenario, or at least a negligible share gain. I can't shake the feeling that Corbyn has done pretty well in Labour-held by-elections so far, and this hype about Copeland will be a repeat of the Oldham excitement. Time will tell.

There is a sort of licence in Byelections that is not there in a General Elections.

The byelection will be in the rather febrile post A50 atmosphere. That could cause the kipper vote to go up or down. The LD vote is likely to be higher, but will it come from Remainer Tories or from Labour?

Quincel

justin124 said:

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

Ladbrokes are, as is often the case, two steps ahead of their competition (imho). I have a suspicion Shadsy makes Labour 5/6 favourites in his mind, but can't stray from the market/money too far if he wants to keep a fairly balanced book.

Pulpstar

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Quincel

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

Betfair also have the Tories at evens, but with Lab at 6/4. I still think it's 50/50 and there could be some surprises to come in terms of the date and candidates. I reckon Labour will try and hold the by-election on May 4th to avoid the Tories being able to throw the kitchen sink at it, and it's quite possible we'll see a strong local independent or two standing.

Lab at 6/4 is probably value at this point.

I thought the MP was resigning in Jan? That'd be a long time to hold it off.

Indeed, I'm not sure where the certainty that it will be May 4th has come from. Surely March or so is fairly likely?

Sandpit

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

Betfair also have the Tories at evens, but with Lab at 6/4. I still think it's 50/50 and there could be some surprises to come in terms of the date and candidates. I reckon Labour will try and hold the by-election on May 4th to avoid the Tories being able to throw the kitchen sink at it, and it's quite possible we'll see a strong local independent or two standing.

Lab at 6/4 is probably value at this point.

I thought the MP was resigning in Jan? That'd be a long time to hold it off.

He's going to resign on 31st Jan, to take up his new position on 1st Feb. Labour could conceiveably hold off moving the writ until the end of March, eight weeks later, for a by-election on May 4th. It's not outside the bounds of convention, which is usually three months after the vacancy arises. Lab would certainly like their opponents to be distracted by the locals, and for them to have their own candidate in place well beforehand.

another_richard

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Ladbrokes now have the Tories at Evens in Copeland.Does that really make them strong favourites with Labour at 11/10?

Betfair also have the Tories at evens, but with Lab at 6/4. I still think it's 50/50 and there could be some surprises to come in terms of the date and candidates. I reckon Labour will try and hold the by-election on May 4th to avoid the Tories being able to throw the kitchen sink at it, and it's quite possible we'll see a strong local independent or two standing.

Lab at 6/4 is probably value at this point.

I thought the MP was resigning in Jan? That'd be a long time to hold it off.

Leicestershire NW was left without an MP from David Taylor's death on Boxing Day 2009 until the general election on 6th May 2010.

Chris_A

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

Agree that if Tories win Copeland it may well be on this scenario, or at least a negligible share gain. I can't shake the feeling that Corbyn has done pretty well in Labour-held by-elections so far, and this hype about Copeland will be a repeat of the Oldham excitement. Time will tell.

That Oldham by election was so obviously a Labour hold,. the UKIP hype was a bit silly when you look at the demographic

Did you get a job in the betting game?

I'm still in the law.

And to actually answer your earlier question instead of vaguely dodging it, the last by-election gain in GB where the winning party lost vote share was Birmingham Northfield in 1982. Labour barely won the by-election after barely losing in the general, due to them slipping marginally less than the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Northfield_by-election,_1982

Ah, dear old Bill Boaks

williamglenn

Anyone who doubts that a comprehensive detente with Russia is on the cards should look at the last few tweets from Donald Trump. The world will be very different a year from now (apart from Brexit which will still be intractable).

Black_Rook

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

One specific scenario - Le Pen was in second or joint second in all of the others, IIRC. Was advised by another poster the other day that it all depends on the choice of Socialist candidate. A more likely selection e.g. Manuel Valls eats into the Macron vote share and makes life easier for Le Pen.

All the same, from what I've seen (which isn't much) Mr Macron appears to be putting up a pretty decent showing.

another_richard

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

"Polite Tories"?? Now THAT is a new beastie!

Well we know you wouldn't vote LibDem whether through politeness or not.

But I think there was almost a habit in the 1980s and 1990s that people voted LibDem in byelections because it was seen as a 'nice' thing to do.

Quite the opposite. It was to give the finger to the Establishment (represented by the Tories, who were in an unbroken 18 years of rule). They were the Trumpsters of their time.

But they usually did well in Labour defending byelections in that era.

And the LibDem gain in Romsey was when the Conservatives were no longer in power.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Posted umpteen times yesterday and largely of little relevance as Valls will most likely be PS candidate according to all the PS primary polls, not Montebourg and with Valls as candidate Macron falls to 18% in the same poll with Le Pen on 23% and Fillon on 26%, with Bayrou as a runner too Macron falls even further to 16% with Le Pen on 22% and Fillon on 23%
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/05012017_les_echos_radio_classique_intentions-de-vote-presidentielles_vague_5.pdf

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Posted umpteen times yesterday and largely of little relevance as Valls will most likely be PS candidate according to all the PS primary polls, not Montebourg and with Valls as candidate Macron falls to 18% with Le Pen on 23% and Fillon on 23%, with Bayrou as a runner too Macron falls even further to 16% with Le Pen on 22% and Fillon on 23%
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/05012017_les_echos_radio_classique_intentions-de-vote-presidentielles_vague_5.pdf

The question is whether the left vote remains split if Valls is the candidate. Macron has the big mo, and could steal votes from Fillon in the first round to get him over the line.

dr_spyn

Old Holborn has noticed that Jezza employs Swiss Flag for backdrop on NHS crisis tweet. Milne doing his level best as usual.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Agree with those bets. Rather like the 2002 election, it could be very close as to who makes the runoff.

HYUFD

Quincel said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

' The Tories have been made strong odds-on favourite even though you have to go back decades before you find a governing party winning a seat from the main opposition in a Westminster by-election. '

Sunderland South 1953 - Labour defending majority of 306 (0.6%)
Brighouse & Spenborough 1960 - Labour defending majority of 47 (0.1%)
Mitcham & Morden 1982 - SDP defending Labour majority of 618 (1.3%)

By comparison the majority Labour is defending in Copeland is 2,564 (6.5%)

A Conservative gain in Copeland would be an achievement a magnitude greater than those in Sunderland South and Brighouse.

Asked before.. and I think the people that know are too scared to talk to me (!)... How often to parties gain seats despite losing % of the vote? Could happen here

Agree that if Tories win Copeland it may well be on this scenario, or at least a negligible share gain. I can't shake the feeling that Corbyn has done pretty well in Labour-held by-elections so far, and this hype about Copeland will be a repeat of the Oldham excitement. Time will tell.

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

HYUFD

Black_Rook said:

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

One specific scenario - Le Pen was in second or joint second in all of the others, IIRC. Was advised by another poster the other day that it all depends on the choice of Socialist candidate. A more likely selection e.g. Manuel Valls eats into the Macron vote share and makes life easier for Le Pen.

All the same, from what I've seen (which isn't much) Mr Macron appears to be putting up a pretty decent showing.

Macron does well if the PS picks a leftwinger as he then has the centre all to himself, with the left split between Melenchon and Montebourg and the right between Fillon and Le Pen. If Valls wins the PS nomination it is then the centre that is split and Macron falls back yes

Quincel

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Posted umpteen times yesterday and largely of little relevance as Valls will most likely be PS candidate according to all the PS primary polls, not Montebourg and with Valls as candidate Macron falls to 18% with Le Pen on 23% and Fillon on 23%, with Bayrou as a runner too Macron falls even further to 16% with Le Pen on 22% and Fillon on 23%
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/05012017_les_echos_radio_classique_intentions-de-vote-presidentielles_vague_5.pdf

The question is whether the left vote remains split if Valls is the candidate. Macron has the big mo, and could steal votes from Fillon in the first round to get him over the line.

Valls is basically a Blairite like Macron, if he is candidate it is the centre that is split and the far left unites around Melenchon. I doubt Macron gets many votes from Fillon he has not already got, in round 1 Fillon is competing for the nationalist right with Le Pen

matt

williamglenn said:

Anyone who doubts that a comprehensive detente with Russia is on the cards should look at the last few tweets from Donald Trump. The world will be very different a year from now (apart from Brexit which will still be intractable).

Fine, so long as your not Ukrainian, Estonian or some other minority the Putin sees as subservient. Still Trump has to pay his debts.

RobD

matt said:

williamglenn said:

Anyone who doubts that a comprehensive detente with Russia is on the cards should look at the last few tweets from Donald Trump. The world will be very different a year from now (apart from Brexit which will still be intractable).

Fine, so long as your not Ukrainian, Estonian or some other minority the Putin sees as subservient. Still Trump has to pay his debts.

I'm sure Trump doesn't see it that way.

HYUFD

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Posted umpteen times yesterday and largely of little relevance as Valls will most likely be PS candidate according to all the PS primary polls, not Montebourg and with Valls as candidate Macron falls to 18% with Le Pen on 23% and Fillon on 23%, with Bayrou as a runner too Macron falls even further to 16% with Le Pen on 22% and Fillon on 23%
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/05012017_les_echos_radio_classique_intentions-de-vote-presidentielles_vague_5.pdf

The question is whether the left vote remains split if Valls is the candidate. Macron has the big mo, and could steal votes from Fillon in the first round to get him over the line.

Valls is basically a Blairite like Macron, if he is candidate it is the centre that is split and the far left unites around Melenchon. I doubt Macron gets many votes from Fillon he has not already got, in round 1 Fillon is competing for the nationalist right with Le Pen

It depends where Macron's ceiling is. The more Fillon moves onto Le Pen's turf, the more ground he exposes on the centre.

Fillon has a terrible record on things like gay rights and could easily turn off voters who don't want the second round to be a race to the far right.

justin124

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back

The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.

RobD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back

The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.

They've definitely edged down if you look at the average curve.

Black_Rook

#NHSCrisis

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/817745133349326848

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back

The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.

A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Anyone seen this:

Europe Elects
Yesterday at 17:49 ·

France, Elabe poll:

Fillon (LR-EPP): 26%
Macron (NI-NI): 24%
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 22%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 14%
Montebourg (PS-S&D): 9%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 2%
Poutou (NPA-LEFT): 2%
Arthaud (LO-NI): 1%
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 1%

Laying Le Pen and backing Macron looks the way to go right now in this market.

Posted umpteen times yesterday and largely of little relevance as Valls will most likely be PS candidate according to all the PS primary polls, not Montebourg and with Valls as candidate Macron falls to 18% with Le Pen on 23% and Fillon on 23%, with Bayrou as a runner too Macron falls even further to 16% with Le Pen on 22% and Fillon on 23%
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/05012017_les_echos_radio_classique_intentions-de-vote-presidentielles_vague_5.pdf

The question is whether the left vote remains split if Valls is the candidate. Macron has the big mo, and could steal votes from Fillon in the first round to get him over the line.

Valls is basically a Blairite like Macron, if he is candidate it is the centre that is split and the far left unites around Melenchon. I doubt Macron gets many votes from Fillon he has not already got, in round 1 Fillon is competing for the nationalist right with Le Pen

It depends where Macron's ceiling is. The more Fillon moves onto Le Pen's turf, the more ground he exposes on the centre.

Fillon has a terrible record on things like gay rights and could easily turn off voters who don't want the second round to be a race to the far right.

That depends on Macron having the centre to himself, that is not the case if Valls and/or Bayrou are also in the race

dr_spyn

Milne find that Red Cross for me for the latest NHS outrage tweet.

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/817757686586601472

RobD

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

dr_spyn

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

So super serious that Corbyn makes an elementary error with the Red Cross Flag which was based on a reversal of Swiss Flag colours.

foxinsoxuk

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.

What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.

williamglenn

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

"Crisis means Crisis, and we're going to make political capital out of it."

logical_song

foxinsoxuk said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.

What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.

Isn't that going to happen anyway, the LDs will want to build strength in wards that they can win at County and District level.I was surprised to see that Copeland includes Keswick, I'd imagine that they could do well there.

Black_Rook

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back

The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.

A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote

Possibly, but it could just be a straightforward outlier. The pollster that looks the most variable is actually Ipsos MORI.

Anyway, I am given to understand that the next Welsh Barometer Poll is out on Monday. That could be a useful indicator. Local conditions in Wales are somewhat different (primarily due to the presence of Plaid, of course,) but the country nonetheless shares some similarities with the North. If there is further evidence of the Tories closing the gap on Labour in terms of Westminster VI share, then this would presumably be encouraging for their outlook in Copeland...?

Sandpit

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

MarqueeMark

dr_spyn said:

Old Holborn has noticed that Jezza employs Swiss Flag for backdrop on NHS crisis tweet. Milne doing his level best as usual.

Probably because the Red Cross is EXTREMELY aggressive about enforcing people not using the Red Cross logo. Can you imagine the fiasco of Corbyn being told in the strongest possible terms not to associate his politics with their emblem? So they will have used the Swiss flag instead - and hope nobody out there is a vexillographer.....

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

It is a bit hyperbolic, but the situation in Worcester that provoked the comment sounds pretty dire.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/three-deaths-worcestershire-royal-hospital-nhs-winter-crisis

Of course this is not visible from a wealthy gulf state, just to us poor bloody infantry. I am glad that my own Trust is not so stressed, though at times we get close.

HYUFD

foxinsoxuk said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.

What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.

Given Copeland voted 62% Leave I doubt there are that many Tory Remainers to target, all the polling evidence shows that the main gains the LDs have made since the election have come from Labour

foxinsoxuk

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.

What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.

Given Copeland voted 62% Leave I doubt there are that many Tory Remainers to target, all the polling evidence shows that the main gains the LDs have made since the election have come from Labour

I suspect there are a fair number, weren't we assured that it was the WWC who were pro Leave?

logical_song

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

I think that the 'politeness' theory needs some explaining.

AlastairMeeks

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

HYUFD

Black_Rook said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back

The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.

A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote

Possibly, but it could just be a straightforward outlier. The pollster that looks the most variable is actually Ipsos MORI.

Anyway, I am given to understand that the next Welsh Barometer Poll is out on Monday. That could be a useful indicator. Local conditions in Wales are somewhat different (primarily due to the presence of Plaid, of course,) but the country nonetheless shares some similarities with the North. If there is further evidence of the Tories closing the gap on Labour in terms of Westminster VI share, then this would presumably be encouraging for their outlook in Copeland...?

Indeed and Wales voted Leave of course like Copeland

RobD

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?

HYUFD

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.

What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.

Given Copeland voted 62% Leave I doubt there are that many Tory Remainers to target, all the polling evidence shows that the main gains the LDs have made since the election have come from Labour

I suspect there are a fair number, weren't we assured that it was the WWC who were pro Leave?

Plus the lower middle class and a clear majority of Tories voted Leave, the majority of Tories in Copeland are likely wwc and lower middle class, there are not many upper middle class Tories there as there were in Richmond. Anyway, I am doing my first phonebank session at CCHQ in Copeland on Thursday so will let you know if I hear any thing dramatic. I had a work colleague who did similar calls in Richmond for the LDs and could pick up the trend soon enough

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

It is a bit hyperbolic, but the situation in Worcester that provoked the comment sounds pretty dire.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/three-deaths-worcestershire-royal-hospital-nhs-winter-crisis

Of course this is not visible from a wealthy gulf state, just to us poor bloody infantry. I am glad that my own Trust is not so stressed, though at times we get close.

Three people dying is a humanitarian crisis? That's more than a bit hyperbolic!

AlastairMeeks

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?

A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.

daodao

williamglenn said:

It depends where Macron's ceiling is. The more Fillon moves onto Le Pen's turf, the more ground he exposes on the centre.

Fillon has a terrible record on things like gay rights and could easily turn off voters who don't want the second round to be a race to the far right.

Fillon's record on matters like gay rights may seem terrible to you, but he seems to have moral principles, is a democrat and is unlikely to be particularly hostile to the UK. I hope he reaches the 2nd round. A Le Pen presidency would be ominous for Europe and a left-of-centre candidate facing her in the 2nd round would give her a real chance.

Black_Rook

logical_song said:

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.

For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.

Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).

The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey_by-election,_2000

Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.

I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.

I think that the 'politeness' theory needs some explaining.

I voted Lib Dem in 2015, partly out of sympathy for their plight. Is that close enough?

RobD

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?

A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.

I wonder how many people donate to charities thinking/hoping that their donation will cause a significant change in policy? I suspect far fewer than those who donate to political parties.

isam

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/817823124779597827

AlastairMeeks

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?

A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.

I wonder how many people donate to charities thinking/hoping that their donation will cause a significant change in policy? I suspect far fewer than those who donate to political parties.

Logically that makes it a still bigger problem for the Conservative party if donors are unhappy. Why would they pay for what they aren't getting?

foxinsoxuk

logical_song said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%

But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.

The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.

What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.

Isn't that going to happen anyway, the LDs will want to build strength in wards that they can win at County and District level.I was surprised to see that Copeland includes Keswick, I'd imagine that they could do well there.

Exactly the sort of tacit co operation that I mean. Soft Brexit must be quite sellable to small hill farmers. 2/3 of our Lamb is exported to the EU, and flooding the country with tarrif free NZ lamb would not suit them at all. It is a matter of speaking to the issues that motivate the voters, as the Tories will over nuclear.

I think that the leaflet in the header will not have much effect as 1) The Labour candidate will be pro nuclear, 2) Corbyn will not be PM after this byelection 3) Corbyn is out of line with the party on this issue.

Sandpit

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

I spoke today to a relative who donates regularly. She wants to see her money spent in Syria and Yemen, helping those in genuine need, rather than gettting involved in nakedly political campaigns in the UK. I think she has a fair point.

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

It is a bit hyperbolic, but the situation in Worcester that provoked the comment sounds pretty dire.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/three-deaths-worcestershire-royal-hospital-nhs-winter-crisis

Of course this is not visible from a wealthy gulf state, just to us poor bloody infantry. I am glad that my own Trust is not so stressed, though at times we get close.

Three people dying is a humanitarian crisis? That's more than a bit hyperbolic!

3 died, but the overall situation was dire and care massively compromised. Only the dedication of the staff kept it from being much more serious.

williamglenn

daodao said:

williamglenn said:

It depends where Macron's ceiling is. The more Fillon moves onto Le Pen's turf, the more ground he exposes on the centre.

Fillon has a terrible record on things like gay rights and could easily turn off voters who don't want the second round to be a race to the far right.

Fillon's record on matters like gay rights may seem terrible to you, but he seems to have moral principles, is a democrat and is unlikely to be particularly hostile to the UK. I hope he reaches the 2nd round. A Le Pen presidency would be ominous for Europe and a left-of-centre candidate facing her in the 2nd round would give her a real chance.

I'm not making a moral judgement on him; just giving a prediction. I don't think Le Pen wins in any scenario, for the record.

Ishmael_Z

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?

A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.

I think the main point made last night was that donors had nowhere else to go. Whereas I would react to this twattery from the Red Cross by diverting my donations to Médecins Sans Frontières‎, part of whose schtick is absolute political impartiality. (The reason I cannot divert any funds is that I already donate to Médecins Sans Frontières‎ and not to the Red Cross).

RobD

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Humanitarian crisis? Seriously?

"NHS Crisis 2017: This time we are super serious"

Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.

A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.

Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.

A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?

A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.

I wonder how many people donate to charities thinking/hoping that their donation will cause a significant change in policy? I suspect far fewer than those who donate to political parties.

Logically that makes it a still bigger problem for the Conservative party if donors are unhappy. Why would they pay for what they aren't getting?

I'd argue that a donor throwing their toys out of the pram for not getting their way looks much worse for the donor than the party.

AlastairMeeks

And with the outing of the head banging party loyalists, my work is done for the evening.

HYUFD

SeanT said:

In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?

I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.

Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon