politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Len McCluskey thinks LAB could be in government after GE2020 –

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Len McCluskey thinks LAB could be in government after GE2020 – a pipe dream or a possibility?

Len McCluskey is right. Labour could be back in government as a result of the 2020 General Election. I agree with the Unite leader that while there’s little chance of Labour winning the election there’s a decent chance that the Tories will lose it. McCluskey is rather more emphatic than me: “ I don’t think the Tories will win the next election. They might be the largest party but I don’t think they will be able to form a government,” he told the Observer  What he foresees is a minority government supported by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP.

Read the full story here

Ishmael_Z

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

IanB2

Second. Like Labour will be very lucky to be.

Sean_F

Ishmael_Z said:

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

He had a very brief honeymoon.

But, Labour's position now is far weaker than in the two years after 1992.

Richard_Nabavi

I loved this bit of Don's piece:

And like Len McCluskey I suspect the Theresa May’s is much more fragile than it looks. I aired my hostility to her policies in my last post here.

Clearly if Don is hostile to her policies, she has no hope.

Richard_Nabavi

Ishmael_Z said:

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

The pundits went from 'the Tories are finished!' before the election to 'Labour can never win again!' after the election. It was very amusing.

IanB2

Ishmael_Z said:

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

Exactly. The expectation during the campaign was that Kinnock would just make it. I remember canvassing in London the last few days, then spending most of the day talking to people at a polling station in Waltham Forest. It didn't feel to me like the Tory government was finally being thrown out of office in an enthusiastic tidal wave of support for Labour, and so it proved.

We already know enough to take anything purporting to be objective analysis about Labour from Mr Brind with a lakeload of salt.

And the problem is not only that there is no apparent Mr Schultz, but that there are a few big strategic issues any new leader will have to resolve; just not being Corbyn won't be enough.

[Deleted User]

Don,
Your party's brand is Ratnered. It's not just Corbyn.

HYUFD

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

He had a very brief honeymoon.

But, Labour's position now is far weaker than in the two years after 1992.

Corbyn is certainly no John Smith or Tony Blair, he is not even a Neil Kinnock

ThreeQuidder

After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.

Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

TheValiant

I'd completely agree. There are several thing that could happen for Labour to 'win' in 2020 - because it certainly looks like that is when the next general election will be.

1. Dump Corbyn. Yes, he's proved difficult to shift but perhaps he sees sense and leaves, or perhaps he just falls under a bus and the hard left fail to win. A centre left leader (Who? Ed Miliband, Dan Jarvis?) could easily hold on to all seats where they are deemed to notionally hold in 2020 and perhaps even make a few gains. I also don't subscribe to the view it's too late to change leader now. I think the latest is probably September 2019 when it really does become too late, but until then it is possible.

2. Balls-up Brexit (TM someone else on this board) which tarnishes May and the Conservative party and leads to them losing seats to the Lib Dems.

3. Events dear boy, events. Three years is a long time. Who knows what will really happen between now and then.

Absent (3), I think for Labour to be in government in 2020 you need both (1) AND (2) to happen but it's certainly not implausible to see Labour managing to form a government in 2020.

Though I will stress that ISN'T a Corbyn led Labour.

IanB2

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ishmael_Z said:

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

The pundits went from 'the Tories are finished!' before the election to 'Labour can never win again!' after the election. It was very amusing.

Which, playing devil's advocate for the article, does at least prove that most pundits are incapable of foreseeing anything other than the consensus expectation at the time and the immediately foreseeable.

I don't recall any articles in early 1992 predicting the imminence of the largest ever vote for the Conservatives, nor any that summer predicting that the next election would bring about Labour's largest ever landslide! Those would have been worth reading.

Fenman

Pipe dream for him, nightmare for the rest of us...

DavidL

Trying to be positive about Don's piece it is undoubtedly the case that this government has a very small majority and it really would not take much for that to disappear. It might not even take a swing in the vote of any substance, simply a reduction in the remarkable efficiency of vote that the Tories achieved in 2015.

But the starting point for those observations is that Labour starts where it finished in 2015, that is at 31% of the vote. That looks a long way off. It also fails to recognise the significance of the 4m who voted UKIP the last time. However that splits it is unlikely to damage the Tories and seems likely to move their share into the low 40s. So far the Lib Dems are going nowhere in the national polling (unlike in bye elections) which make any assumptions about them recovering a significant number of seats highly speculative. And the Tories are very likely to increase their number of seats in Scotland. And there is the boundary changes which are thought to be favourable. I could go on but this is a long enough list. Getting back to the heady days of 2015 vis a vis the Tories is a very big ask for Labour. An almost impossible one in fact.

Corbyn as leader is really just the icing on the cake.

Casino_Royale

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 Copelands

[Deleted User]

ThreeQuidder said:

After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.

Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?

Many in this country want a continental level of public services. But....and this is a killer but....we repeatedly refuse to accept the higher level of taxes to pay for it. So we borrowed. And pretended that was sustainable. But, since the financial crisis, running huge deficits is no longer a credible policy.
Labour's huge, massive, humungous monster of a problem is that we all know they don't give a shit about financial reposnsibility. The answer to absolutely every single question is more spending, more state. They promise the moon on a stick and anybody who doesn't buy their bullshit is 'nasty'. But in a world where it is a statement of the bleeding obvious that we can't just borrow forever they are forced into not promising to bankrupt us if they want to get votes. Either they have to pare back the spendy promises or they have to promise to tax us more.
The Tories, for good or bad, are being clear they will spend less and we're headed back towards balanced books.
WTF are Labour promising?

kle4

All things are possible - though it looks very unlikely at the moment it could be easy for a Tory government 10 years into power to unravel swiftly in the right circumstances, and Corbyn has been so bad if he is replaced there could be a surge, not in membership, but in active support, from those desperate not to miss the chance of a relevant opposition again, though obviously Len would see replacement as not needed.

Casino_Royale

The only way I can see Don's scenario happening is if Brexit turns out to be an absolute disaster, May falls, a dud of a Tory leader takes over, whom then fall into disarray, the economy tanks, Labour ditches Corbyn, replaces him with someone sensible (like Balls) who elbow aside the far-Left and Momentum, manages to make himself look like the safe pair of hands, with a strong appeal in English marginals, calling for national unity.

The Tories could then lose c.20 seats to the Lib Dems, c.50 to Labour, and a rainbow coalition might take over as a Government of national emergency, governing very much in a centrist manner.

What are the chances of that? <5%?

logical_song

IanB2 said:

Ishmael_Z said:

In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?

Exactly. The expectation during the campaign was that Kinnock would just make it. I remember canvassing in London the last few days, then spending most of the day talking to people at a polling station in Waltham Forest. It didn't feel to me like the Tory government was finally being thrown out of office in an enthusiastic tidal wave of support for Labour, and so it proved.

We already know enough to take anything purporting to be objective analysis about Labour from Mr Brind with a lakeload of salt.

And the problem is not only that there is no apparent Mr Schultz, but that there are a few big strategic issues any new leader will have to resolve; just not being Corbyn won't be enough.

Lakes tend to be pretty much salt-free.

kle4

SeanT said:

English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.

That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.

The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.

That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.

The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.

Not on present polling

Casino_Royale

kle4 said:

All things are possible - though it looks very unlikely at the moment it could be easy for a Tory government 10 years into power to unravel swiftly in the right circumstances, and Corbyn has been so bad if he is replaced there could be a surge, not in membership, but in active support, from those desperate not to miss the chance of a relevant opposition again, though obviously Len would see replacement as not needed.

It's only three years to the next GE. I think voters will give May the benefit of the doubt until the Brexit deal is sorted. And then there's the matter of managing the transition period, likely to be 3 years.

That gives Labour 14 months when they might (just might) get a hearing: from March 2019 to May 2020.

What can they do in 14 months? And how can they make themselves relevant to managing the transition period, as well as closing the remainder of the deficit?

I'd say their next real shot is GE2025 when Brexit is fully done, new trade deals are in place, the deficit should be plugged, and people are maybe looking for a change after 15 years.

kle4

Patrick said:

ThreeQuidder said:

After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.

Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?

Many in this country want a continental level of public services. But....and this is a killer but....we repeatedly refuse to accept the higher level of taxes to pay for it. So we borrowed. And pretended that was sustainable. But, since the financial crisis, running huge deficits is no longer a credible policy.
Labour's huge, massive, humungous monster of a problem is that we all know they don't give a shit about financial reposnsibility. The answer to absolutely every single question is more spending, more state. They promise the moon on a stick and anybody who doesn't buy their bullshit is 'nasty'. But in a world where it is a statement of the bleeding obvious that we can't just borrow forever they are forced into not promising to bankrupt us if they want to get votes. Either they have to pare back the spendy promises or they have to promise to tax us more.
The Tories, for good or bad, are being clear they will spend less and we're headed back towards balanced books.
WTF are Labour promising?

Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments. Likewise they are seen as stronger on defence even though they've slashed defence spending as much as anyone. Meanwhile, Labour can do all manner of things regarding the NHS, but people trust they care more about it and will do a better job regardless of whatever happens.

logical_song

DavidL said:

Trying to be positive about Don's piece it is undoubtedly the case that this government has a very small majority and it really would not take much for that to disappear. It might not even take a swing in the vote of any substance, simply a reduction in the remarkable efficiency of vote that the Tories achieved in 2015.

But the starting point for those observations is that Labour starts where it finished in 2015, that is at 31% of the vote. That looks a long way off. It also fails to recognise the significance of the 4m who voted UKIP the last time. However that splits it is unlikely to damage the Tories and seems likely to move their share into the low 40s. So far the Lib Dems are going nowhere in the national polling (unlike in bye elections) which make any assumptions about them recovering a significant number of seats highly speculative. And the Tories are very likely to increase their number of seats in Scotland. And there is the boundary changes which are thought to be favourable. I could go on but this is a long enough list. Getting back to the heady days of 2015 vis a vis the Tories is a very big ask for Labour. An almost impossible one in fact.

Corbyn as leader is really just the icing on the cake.

If Corbyn was replaced by an electable leader and the country has to face real Brexit facts, things could look very different very quickly.
By the way, is it a foregone conclusion that the 2020 election would be on the new boundaries or could that slip or be dependent on a vote?

calum

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.

That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.

The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.

Labour's main Scottish problem is itself !

HYUFD

Casino_Royale said:

The only way I can see Don's scenario happening is if Brexit turns out to be an absolute disaster, May falls, a dud of a Tory leader takes over, whom then fall into disarray, the economy tanks, Labour ditches Corbyn, replaces him with someone sensible (like Balls) who elbow aside the far-Left and Momentum, manages to make himself look like the safe pair of hands, with a strong appeal in English marginals, calling for national unity.

The Tories could then lose c.20 seats to the Lib Dems, c.50 to Labour, and a rainbow coalition might take over as a Government of national emergency, governing very much in a centrist manner.

What are the chances of that? <5%?</p>

On a platform of taking the UK back into the single market at least a slim chance but that is more likely in 2025 in my view

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.

That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.

The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.

Not on present polling

If present polling could predict the future there would be no point to this site. It's not a very useful observation.

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 Copelands

So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.

That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.

The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.

Not on present polling

I did say 'may'.

Casino_Royale

SeanT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.

Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?

Schulz came back from Brussels - which raises a slightly interesting question. Given that every Labour Brit in the EU is about to be redundant, do they not have any MEPs or functionaries over there with leader-like talents?

My main reason for being so confident on ongoing Labour electoral failure is this: they (still) show absolutely no signs whatsoever of being ready to compromise with the electorate.

Until they move on from their GE2010 defeat - and their current thinking is receding, not progressing - then they will not win again.

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Tissue_Price

40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 Copelands

So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.

As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Brind, was rumours of what that polling contained

calum

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Until Scotland departs?

Tissue_Price

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 Copelands

So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.

As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Bronx, was rumours of what that polling contained

You said CTF poll specifically.

RobD

calum said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Until Scotland departs?

I don't think that will happen before the next GE though!

TheScreamingEagles

calum said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Until Scotland departs?

I heard the same thing in 2014/15.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 Copelands

So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.

As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Bronx, was rumours of what that polling contained

You said CTF poll specifically.

Rumours of it, it has not released any figures including about Tory LD marginals

TheScreamingEagles

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

In mathematical theory maybe, not in political reality.

A minority government of SNP-LD-Labour would be ridiculously unstable where Labour were 100 seats shy of a majority and the Tories would outvote them in all EVEL divisions.

It would be a recipe for chaos.

Pulpstar

Tissue_Price said:

40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk

Your bet(s) have been placed.
Total Stake: £1.00 Pot. Win: £41.00

TICK BOOM

I'll let it run..

Essexit

Would the SNP really work with Labour? My bet is they'd either make such unreasonable demands that Labour wouldn't work with them, or find some tenuous reason to reject a coalition/C&S agreement. Keeping their Westminster outsider status is key to their brand, and we've seen in Scotland that they don't actually like governing if they can help it, as it makes it so much easier to blame England/Tories/Westminster for everything.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

I think it'd be a confidence arrangement with the Tories, the main price being the softest of soft Brexits if that was the maths.

Lab-SNP-Uncle Tom Cobbly isn't really that stable a government.

calum

RobD said:

calum said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Until Scotland departs?

I don't think that will happen before the next GE though!

I mean't after 2020 but before 2020 - so would break the rainbow !

Tissue_Price

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk

Your bet(s) have been placed.
Total Stake: £1.00 Pot. Win: £41.00

TICK BOOM

I'll let it run..

I was allowed 20p

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

If voters in Tory-Lib Dem marginal think for one moment that voting Lib Dem might put Jezza into Number 10, they'll vote Tory.

OldKingCole

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

[Deleted User]

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

I think it'd be a confidence arrangement with the Tories, the main price being the softest of soft Brexits if that was the maths.

Lab-SNP-Uncle Tom Cobbly isn't really that stable a government.

Is this not a putative 2020 arrangement we're discussing? We'll already be 1 year into either an agreed independence or a not-agreed one by then.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

I think it'd be a confidence arrangement with the Tories, the main price being the softest of soft Brexits if that was the maths.

Lab-SNP-Uncle Tom Cobbly isn't really that stable a government.

Say in 2019 we leave the EU on WTO terms which leads to a proper economic slump, Lab, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and SDLP all say we'll form an alliance to retake us back into the single market/The EU, it might work.

The deficit was the glue that helped form and keep the Con/LD coalition together, a Brexit disaster could do the same for the Rainbow Alliance.

RobD

calum said:

RobD said:

calum said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Until Scotland departs?

I don't think that will happen before the next GE though!

I mean't after 2020 but before 2020 - so would break the rainbow !

That's a very narrow timeframe...

Pulpstar

Patrick said:

Is this not a putative 2020 arrangement we're discussing? We'll already be 1 year into either an agreed independence or a not-agreed one by then.

A relationship with the EU will continue in perpetuity, no matter what.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

calum said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

Until Scotland departs?

I heard the same thing in 2014/15.

Good god you have a good memory! That was almost a generation ago

TOPPING

TheValiant said:

I'd completely agree. There are several thing that could happen for Labour to 'win' in 2020 - because it certainly looks like that is when the next general election will be.

1. Dump Corbyn. Yes, he's proved difficult to shift but perhaps he sees sense and leaves, or perhaps he just falls under a bus and the hard left fail to win. A centre left leader (Who? Ed Miliband, Dan Jarvis?) could easily hold on to all seats where they are deemed to notionally hold in 2020 and perhaps even make a few gains. I also don't subscribe to the view it's too late to change leader now. I think the latest is probably September 2019 when it really does become too late, but until then it is possible.

2. Balls-up Brexit (TM someone else on this board) which tarnishes May and the Conservative party and leads to them losing seats to the Lib Dems.

3. Events dear boy, events. Three years is a long time. Who knows what will really happen between now and then.

Absent (3), I think for Labour to be in government in 2020 you need both (1) AND (2) to happen but it's certainly not implausible to see Labour managing to form a government in 2020.

Though I will stress that ISN'T a Corbyn led Labour.

Yes I think that's absolutely the case. In the times of greatest certainty, can occur those events which no one foresaw.

And once it has happened (Jezza deposed, someone vaguely half-sane installed) the dynamics of 2020 change so dramatically that it really would be all to play for. Even the LDs get booted back into play a la 2010.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

Casino_Royale

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD

Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from Labour

As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 Copelands

So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.

As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Brind, was rumours of what that polling contained

The Lib Dems may well sweep those seats, but not until the nation overall is ready for a Labour Government IMHO. Or, perhaps more accurately, Labour overall is ready for a national Government.

In the meantime, the Lib Dems will continue to do well at the local level and in parliamentary by-elections in areas of strength, but in GEs they won't be allowed to do anything that threatens putting an irresponsible Labour PM in charge.

calum

Essexit said:

Would the SNP really work with Labour? My bet is they'd either make such unreasonable demands that Labour wouldn't work with them, or find some tenuous reason to reject a coalition/C&S agreement. Keeping their Westminster outsider status is key to their brand, and we've seen in Scotland that they don't actually like governing if they can help it, as it makes it so much easier to blame England/Tories/Westminster for everything.

The SNP could - as for Labour not so sure:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive

RobD

Would be interesting to place the average voter on this chart of nationalist/internationalist left/right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/nationalist-todays-politicians-public-thinks/

RobD

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

kle4

calum said:

Essexit said:

Would the SNP really work with Labour? My bet is they'd either make such unreasonable demands that Labour wouldn't work with them, or find some tenuous reason to reject a coalition/C&S agreement. Keeping their Westminster outsider status is key to their brand, and we've seen in Scotland that they don't actually like governing if they can help it, as it makes it so much easier to blame England/Tories/Westminster for everything.

The SNP could - as for Labour not so sure:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive

The argument seems to be English voters didn't believe Labour would not do a deal with the SNP, so they might as well just do it. But it still seems based on the hugely partisan assumption that anyone not willing to deal with the Tories is good stuff, and any price is worth paying to unify the anti-Tory elements.

I understand the appeal of such a deal if one just writes off any prospect of SLAB recovery, which frankly doesn't seen crazy in the current environment, but effectively abandoning the idea of winning there again seems an odd reaction, even if fruitless resistance is, well, fruitless.

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure thabe more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

There is no hard or fast rule on what must be presented to the country in a referendum. Politically calculating would be how I would describe that action. If they had it in their manifesto that they'd only do a deal if the country switched to PR, would that be despicable for example?

JackW

JCWNBPM

The End.

RobD

JackW said:

JCWNBPM

The End.

An official ARSE prediction?

paulbarker

Utter fantasy. If any thing is shifting its an acceleration of Labours decline. Labours polling average has been falling by around 1% every 2 Months for nearly a year now. That rate of decline could increase after Mays results are digested.

Richard_Nabavi

kle4 said:

Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....

Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.

kle4

On boundary changes, what I found amusing was most of the comments in my area, and there were not many, fell into two categories.

The first was those calling it gerrymandering to ensure a 1 party state and/or complaining we need voting reform (including one who said they lived in a safe tory seat and the only way to change that was to make it PR, even though the Tory got over 50% of the vote), and the second was people complaining about the names of the seats. Not very many complaining about the actual boundaries themselves, though I'm sure some areas are more controversial.

kle4

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....

Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.

Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.

JackW

Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.

Audi SQ7

Content Or Not Content ?

JackW

RobD said:

JackW said:

JCWNBPM

The End.

An official ARSE prediction?

You don't need my ARSE when the greatest arse ever to be LotO is the present incumbent.

kle4

kle4 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....

Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.

Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.

Of course the Tories don't give a crap about the deficit either anymore, as a priority, so we're reaching a sort of middle ground.

Pulpstar

Veldhiv & Vichy dominating French twitter today btw.

RobD

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

JCWNBPM

The End.

An official ARSE prediction?

You don't need my ARSE when the greatest arse ever to be LotO is the present incumbent.

I was told to accept no imitations

OldKingCole

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

logical_song

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

There was a referendum on AV. As any number of people pointed out at the time AV is not a proportional system.

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

Veldhiv & Vichy dominating French twitter today btw.

If French twitter resembles British twitter, I'd read about as much into that as I would into the Milifandom that hit twitter in the last general election.

RobD

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

IanB2

kle4 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....

Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.

Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.

As it happened the actual pace of the cuts, hammered out berween the Tories and LibDems, ended up pretty close to what Labour, rather than the Tories, had proposed prior to the 2010 election. Despite all of Balls's gurning and weird hand gestures whenever the Chancellor spoke in the House, it was effectively his own spending policy that was being implemented 2010-15.

IanB2

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.

RobD

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.

Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?

Essexit

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

Agreed, it's the sort of thing that ought to go to the country. And I say that as someone who'd vote for almost any change away from FPTP, barring a Party List system.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, after an initial sugar rush of excitement, Martin Schulz seems to be dropping back against Angela Merkel. It will take more than a change of leader to change the game.

What Labour currently need is a Keith Joseph / Peter Mandelson figure who's prepared to do the hard thinking required to disrupt the current consensus.

RobD

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, after an initial sugar rush of excitement, Martin Schulz seems to be dropping back against Angela Merkel. It will take more than a change of leader to change the game.

What Labour currently need is a Keith Joseph / Peter Mandelson figure who's prepared to do the hard thinking required to disrupt the current consensus.

Are there new German polls that aren't on the wikipedia list? He is only down a touch (edit: if that) on there, so wouldn't rule him out that quickly!

IanB2

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.

Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?

Once we have PR there will be no need

RobD

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.

Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?

Once we have PR there will be no need

Sure thing

kle4

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

Established a precedent how? There's no law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.

It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.

There are many things that would be good ideas or good practice, but I think would be unfair to label as despicable if they were not followed, when they are not obliged to be done in that way. MPs resigning when changing party is another example - I think it's good and fair that they go for a by-election, but it is not required.

Pulpstar

Gorsuch sworn in, might see the immigration case heading up to SCOTUS now - I'm genuinely not sure which way a ruling would go.

RobD

kle4 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.

It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.

Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.

Edit: Calling it despicable was just a bit of tongue in cheek from this FPTP junkie!

kle4

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.

Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?

Unfortunately it rather needs more than a tinkering in several areas.

kle4

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.

Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?

Unfortunately in several areas it may be it needs rather more than a tinkering.

IanB2

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.

It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.

Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.

Edit: Calling it despicable was just a bit of tongue in cheek from this FPTP junkie!

Not really. We had them before. Then we didn't have them. The age was 18, then in Scotland 16.

Politics is the art of what politicians can get away with. Precedent is (almost) irrelevant, except as a debating point.

RobD

IanB2 said:

Not really. We had them before. Then we didn't have them. The age was 18, then in Scotland 16.

Politics is the art of what politicians can get away with. Precedent is (almost) irrelevant, except as a debating point.

You could argue that they were different (devolution vs. independence), but fair enough. I still think it would be extremely difficult for Westminster to say that there must be a minimum turnout requirement, for example.

kle4

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.

It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.

Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.

That's true, unfortunately, though I think it would be easier to make the argument re changing the voting system generally. It could be Labour and LDs for instance both support it, in which case if they together form a majority in the house by the logic of those who oppose PR they have the right to implement that change even if together they have less than 50% of the vote. Sure, they might take some stick for that, but not so much it would ut them off necessarily.

Casino_Royale

Regarding a betting strategy for the next GE, I will wait until the outcome of the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018, and until the shape of the Brexit deal becomes clear in late 2018 and early 2019, before fully committing myself. The former matters for the maths, the latter for the political reaction.

If Corbyn is still there at T-12 months to GE2020 I'll take that as a sign Labour have run out of time to claw back their position too, even if they do chuck him in the final months.

However, I expect Tories most seats to be a steal and might start backing that even earlier.

kle4

When is len due to win reelection anyway?

RobD

kle4 said:

When is len due to win reelection anyway?

19th April, according to this - http://www.unitetheunion.org/growing-our-union/about-us/structure/2017-general-secretary-election/

Edit: results on the 28th

philiph

JackW said:

Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.

Audi SQ7

Content Or Not Content ?

Will the good Lady JackW be able to get enough new shoes in the back after a trip to the shops?

Theuniondivvie

Surely some mistake?

'Poll: Nicola Sturgeon enjoys ‘highest approval in Scotland’

The First Minister is the only domestic politician with a positive approval rating in Scotland, according to a new poll. The Scottish sample of 906 found that 53% of respondents viewed Nicola Sturgeon’s performance above the rating of 50 out of 100, giving the SNP leader an +11% net approval rating.'

The PB Ruthy fan club writ large.

'The poll by Tory peer Lord Ashcroft found 54% of respondents north of the border placed Ruth Davidson below 50 out of 100, with 58% having a similar view of Theresa May’s performance.
...But respondents UK-wide took a more favourable view of Davidson’s performance, with a mean score of 38.1. The First Minister scored 32.4.'

http://tinyurl.com/lzs4rlo

SirNorfolkPassmore

On topic, I do think the old phrase "Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them" is either routinely misinterpreted or plain wrong.

Whilst an election like 2001 was probably unwinnable even if Hague had been much more effective than he was, simply because there was a huge mountain to climb and the economy looked pretty strong at the time, most elections aren't like that.

Looking back at past Government re-elections, we were in recession in 1992, the Conservative Party was divided, John Major untested. Could Labour have won were it not for concerns over Neil Kinnock's ability? Of course. Would 2005 have been different had the Tories not chosen IDS over Clarke (who was opposed to the Iraq invasion remember) in 2001? Very possibly. Likewise, in 2015, any other Miliband would quite possibly have done the business for Labour.

Certainly, how well the Government does in office is not directly in the Opposition's control (although they may be able to inflict defeats, or help create an atmosphere of crisis). If Britain is booming in 2020 and we have a Brexit deal beyond our wildest dreams then no Labour leader has a chance.

But if, as is quite likely, the economy is sluggish, austerity is continuing to bite (particularly on the NHS), and the Brexit deal is poor or non-existent, then all the conditions will be there for a Labour win... but under Corbyn, it won't happen. They say "if you want to win the lottery, first buy a ticket". Corbyn simply isn't a ticket.

madasafish

Well I have come late to the party.
As I read it, Don expects to achieve Government by having an electable leader.

Trouble is : the members who vote for the leader want a left wing leader who is politically pure.

So is Don proposing to change the memberships' opinions? Or hope they all leave?

And I will remind Don that McCluskey is the man who supported : Brown. Miliband and .. Corbyn.. McCluskey is NOT the solution: he is part of the problem. Anyone he supports is useless. Politically that is.