As one of the few posters who have been here for four GEs along with my LD friends Mike Smithson and Mark Senior, I now feel it is my responsibility to be a senior statesman and offer my wise guidance to you on #GE2017!
So:
CON will win - but not as much as some think. We would be happy with a majority of 50.
We might finish 10% to 12% ahead - certainly not 20% or whatever some polls say.
LAB unlikely to go below 200 seats. Unlikely to get less than 28%.
LD comeback = not happening apart from a few seats maybe Bath, SW London. Not in Bermondsey.
SLAB = wipeout. CON get a few more seats in Scotland
LD fightback will happen. Going from 8 (or 9) seats to perhaps 15 is a good achievement and puts the LDs at roughly the same level as 1992 or 1979.
But dreams of returning to the 1997 to 2015 levels of support are just that: dreams.
As one of the few posters who have been here for four GEs along with my LD friends Mike Smithson and Mark Senior, I now feel it is my responsibility to be a senior statesman and offer my wise guidance to you on #GE2017!
So:
CON will win - but not as much as some think. We would be happy with a majority of 50.
We might finish 10% to 12% ahead - certainly not 20% or whatever some polls say.
LAB unlikely to go below 200 seats. Unlikely to get less than 28%.
LD comeback = not happening apart from a few seats maybe Bath, SW London. Not in Bermondsey.
SLAB = wipeout. CON get a few more seats in Scotland
Will CON gain Bootle? Good to see you posting here again.
TY! There will be a swing from LAB to CON in Bootle!
The Danish fishermen argue that they have traditional fishing rights that antedate the EU by a thousand years.
Just like everyone else they gave those up when they joined the EU. If they want to leave the EU then they can maybe get their ancient rights back.
They believe that they have a strong case in law.
Giving Theresa May a blank cheque to negotiate what she chooses, means that she can chuck to the wolves anyone that she finds inconvenient. That is what Theresa's "pig in a poke" Brexit election, without outling her strategy means.
You believe wrongly. Currently the only rules that apply to fishing within EU waters are EU laws. Everything else was surrendered when Denmark and we joined the EU. Whatever rights they had before were thrown away by the idiocy of joining the EU.
I have no view on the case, what I stated is that the Danes think that they have a case.
As one of the few posters who have been here for four GEs along with my LD friends Mike Smithson and Mark Senior, I now feel it is my responsibility to be a senior statesman and offer my wise guidance to you on #GE2017!
So:
CON will win - but not as much as some think. We would be happy with a majority of 50.
We might finish 10% to 12% ahead - certainly not 20% or whatever some polls say.
LAB unlikely to go below 200 seats. Unlikely to get less than 28%.
LD comeback = not happening apart from a few seats maybe Bath, SW London. Not in Bermondsey.
SLAB = wipeout. CON get a few more seats in Scotland
I see no reason why the Labour floor should be as high as 28%. Corbyn isn't even remotely as credible as Gordon Brown, who only managed 29%, and the Tory lead on economic competence as well as leadership is enormous.
There's no particular reason to suppose that the Conservatives won't score somewhere north of 40%, taking into account both that the polling evidence suggests their 2015 support is holding up very well and that a large chunk of the Ukip vote has defected, as well as Labour's dire situation. A 20% lead in vote share might be a little too much to hope for even under current circumstances, but 15% looks eminently achievable.
As one of the few posters who have been here for four GEs along with my LD friends Mike Smithson and Mark Senior, I now feel it is my responsibility to be a senior statesman and offer my wise guidance to you on #GE2017!
So:
CON will win - but not as much as some think. We would be happy with a majority of 50.
We might finish 10% to 12% ahead - certainly not 20% or whatever some polls say.
LAB unlikely to go below 200 seats. Unlikely to get less than 28%.
LD comeback = not happening apart from a few seats maybe Bath, SW London. Not in Bermondsey.
SLAB = wipeout. CON get a few more seats in Scotland
Huzzah.... countdown can end. Although these mellowed forecasts are showing worrying signs of sensibility?
OK - so plugging in Ave_it's corrections to my earlier '1983-with_Labour_minus-SNP' maths...
If Labour don't go below 200, SNP still on 56, LD on, let's say 15 - that still leaves Tories with whopping 200+ majority. I know you'll be happy with 50, but you must admit the reality will be more like 150? What haven't I seen here - am I misunderstanding the numbers in your post?
The Danish fishermen argue that they have traditional fishing rights that antedate the EU by a thousand years.
Just like everyone else they gave those up when they joined the EU. If they want to leave the EU then they can maybe get their ancient rights back.
They believe that they have a strong case in law.
Giving Theresa May a blank cheque to negotiate what she chooses, means that she can chuck to the wolves anyone that she finds inconvenient. That is what Theresa's "pig in a poke" Brexit election, without outling her strategy means.
You believe wrongly. Currently the only rules that apply to fishing within EU waters are EU laws. Everything else was surrendered when Denmark and we joined the EU. Whatever rights they had before were thrown away by the idiocy of joining the EU.
I have no view on the case, what I stated is that the Danes think that they have a case.
The Danish fishermen argue that they have traditional fishing rights that antedate the EU by a thousand years.
Just like everyone else they gave those up when they joined the EU. If they want to leave the EU then they can maybe get their ancient rights back.
They believe that they have a strong case in law.
Giving Theresa May a blank cheque to negotiate what she chooses, means that she can chuck to the wolves anyone that she finds inconvenient. That is what Theresa's "pig in a poke" Brexit election, without outling her strategy means.
You believe wrongly. Currently the only rules that apply to fishing within EU waters are EU laws. Everything else was surrendered when Denmark and we joined the EU. Whatever rights they had before were thrown away by the idiocy of joining the EU.
I have no view on the case, what I stated is that the Danes think that they have a case.
I don't know. Betfair has a market that is very immature at the moment.
I'd probably price at 4/1, or 9/2.
This election feels like it could go one of two ways: an overwhelming national "one-off" mandate for May aka 1931/1935, just for Brexit and stability, or it could get more complicated, and blow back and she could be back in a not much improved position.
English hatin', Jew Baitin', Republican Homophobes
This is what Farron said today on the subject of whether being gay was a sin:
Mr Farron replied: "I do not. And I tell you what, I am very proud to have gone through the lobby behind him in the coalition government where the Liberal Democrats introduced gay marriage, equal marriage, and indeed did not go as far as it should have done in terms of recognising transgender rights.
"However, there is much more to be done, and if we campaign in this election, as we will, for an open, tolerant, united society, then we need to make sure that we do not in any way be complacent about LGBT rights, not just here, but in other parts of the world."
Bloody LDs, crap at homophobia. You need kippers for that, or at least the turnip taliban.
Technically if you have had extra marital sex, committed adultery, ever stolen anything, eaten shellfish or made a blasphemous statement you have also been sinful so I don't think anything Farron's statement on homosexuality was that surprising given his evangelical Christian beliefs
I don't think the shellfish ban made it through to the NT. Anyway, "sinful" is meaningless outside a minority belief system well past its sell-by date. Sorry to be brusque about it, but it would make it simpler to deal with fuckwits who would like to categorise my conduct as haram if we didn't politely privilege the religious delusions of those who would like to describe it as sinful.
Values like these must put the Conservatives up to at least 50% across England as a whole. Certainly over 50% in the South. Possibly approaching 50% in the Midlands now, too.
If this is anywhere close to accurate then it would presumably represent (allowing for the complications of churn) at least a 5% direct Lab to Con swing, leavened with well over a million extra Ukip voters.
The big question, of course, is can the Conservatives hold on? Anywhere from the mid-40s upwards ought presumably to translate into a three-figure majority?
(NB Just plugged those new YouGov numbers into Electoral Calculus, together with a reasonable separate guestimate for Scotland giving the SNP 45%. Came out with an overall Tory majority of 190.)
As one of the few posters who have been here for four GEs along with my LD friends Mike Smithson and Mark Senior, I now feel it is my responsibility to be a senior statesman and offer my wise guidance to you on #GE2017!
So:
CON will win - but not as much as some think. We would be happy with a majority of 50.
We might finish 10% to 12% ahead - certainly not 20% or whatever some polls say.
LAB unlikely to go below 200 seats. Unlikely to get less than 28%.
LD comeback = not happening apart from a few seats maybe Bath, SW London. Not in Bermondsey.
SLAB = wipeout. CON get a few more seats in Scotland
Huzzah.... countdown can end. Although these mellowed forecasts are showing worrying signs of sensibility?
OK - so plugging in Ave_it's corrections to my earlier '1983-with_Labour_minus-SNP' maths...
If Labour don't go below 200, SNP still on 56, LD on, let's say 15 - that still leaves Tories with whopping 200+ majority. I know you'll be happy with 50, but you must admit the reality will be more like 150? What haven't I seen here - am I misunderstanding the numbers in your post?
The way you get a landslide is straight from the Tony Blair Play Book.
Two days before the 1 May 1997, Blair denied he was on course for a landslide. “Britain is not landslide country”, the Great Liar lied.
Values like these must put the Conservatives up to at least 50% across England as a whole. Certainly over 50% in the South. Possibly approaching 50% in the Midlands now, too.
If this is anywhere close to accurate then it would presumably represent (allowing for the complications of churn) at least a 5% direct Lab to Con swing, leavened with well over a million extra Ukip voters.
The big question, of course, is can the Conservatives hold on? Anywhere from the mid-40s upwards ought presumably to translate into a three-figure majority?
(NB Just plugged those new YouGov numbers into Electoral Calculus, together with a reasonable separate guestimate for Scotland giving the SNP 45%. Came out with an overall Tory majority of 190.)
I can't see anything less than 150 majority. And Cameron hailed as the greatest Tory ever...
Ceredigion I do know well. The 2015 election was very dirty, with Mark Williams (now exposed as a election expenses fraudster by the Electoral Commission) smearing the Plaid Cymru candidate as a fascist. I don’t think what we have learned since 2015 has improved Mark’s chances.
According to electoralcalculus Sedgefield goes down to the Tories on those numbers and May would have a 190 majority.
And if I'm reading it correctly, Luton North and Oxford East would be the last two Labour seats left in the whole of Southern England, outside of Greater London.
I'm pretty bullish about the Tories' chances, but not even I think that Labour are likely to be routed that badly, even if they deserve it.
Technically if you have had extra marital sex, committed adultery, ever stolen anything, eaten shellfish or made a blasphemous statement you have also been sinful so I don't think anything Farron's statement on homosexuality was that surprising given his evangelical Christian beliefs
I don't think the shellfish ban made it through to the NT. Anyway, "sinful" is meaningless outside a minority belief system well past its sell-by date. Sorry to be brusque about it, but it would make it simpler to deal with fuckwits who would like to categorise my conduct as haram if we didn't politely privilege the religious delusions of those who would like to describe it as sinful.
I doubt we live a day without doing something sinful but that doesn't excuse our failure. Did you vote "Leave" as well?
English hatin', Jew Baitin', Republican Homophobes
This is what Farron said today on the subject of whether being gay was a sin:
Mr Farron replied: "I do not. And I tell you what, I am very proud to have gone through the lobby behind him in the coalition government where the Liberal Democrats introduced gay marriage, equal marriage, and indeed did not go as far as it should have done in terms of recognising transgender rights.
"However, there is much more to be done, and if we campaign in this election, as we will, for an open, tolerant, united society, then we need to make sure that we do not in any way be complacent about LGBT rights, not just here, but in other parts of the world."
Bloody LDs, crap at homophobia. You need kippers for that, or at least the turnip taliban.
Technically if you have had extra marital sex, committed adultery, ever stolen anything, eaten shellfish or made a blasphemous statement you have also been sinful
As one of the few posters who have been here for four GEs along with my LD friends Mike Smithson and Mark Senior, I now feel it is my responsibility to be a senior statesman and offer my wise guidance to you on #GE2017!
So:
CON will win - but not as much as some think. We would be happy with a majority of 50.
We might finish 10% to 12% ahead - certainly not 20% or whatever some polls say.
LAB unlikely to go below 200 seats. Unlikely to get less than 28%.
LD comeback = not happening apart from a few seats maybe Bath, SW London. Not in Bermondsey.
SLAB = wipeout. CON get a few more seats in Scotland
I see no reason why the Labour floor should be as high as 28%. Corbyn isn't even remotely as credible as Gordon Brown, who only managed 29%, and the Tory lead on economic competence as well as leadership is enormous.
There's no particular reason to suppose that the Conservatives won't score somewhere north of 40%, taking into account both that the polling evidence suggests their 2015 support is holding up very well and that a large chunk of the Ukip vote has defected, as well as Labour's dire situation. A 20% lead in vote share might be a little too much to hope for even under current circumstances, but 15% looks eminently achievable.
The floor will be because Labour have so obviously lost this election it will cease to be about Corbyn vs May for a number of Labour 2015 voters. If you know Corbyn has no chance, and you have always voted Labour, even in 2015, you will be more scared of complete electoral wipeout for Labour than the risk that he actually wins.
The other thing to remember is that this is a sure-thing election coming 7 years into tory government. Motivation will be lower and there will be a decent chunk of voters who are sick of the government simply because that is what happens after 7 years in power.
According to electoralcalculus Sedgefield goes down to the Tories on those numbers and May would have a 190 majority.
And if I'm reading it correctly, Luton North and Oxford East would be the last two Labour seats left in the whole of Southern England, outside of Greater London.
I'm pretty bullish about the Tories' chances, but not even I think that Labour are likely to be routed that badly, even if they deserve it.
Fascinating - yet Luton North was Conservative back in 1992, when they barely scraped a majority.
A number of Tory posters on here this evening are getting rather carried away with some very fanciful forecasts. What is needed is a new thread from Mr Brind to bring everyone back to earth.
If the Tory hierarchy have any sense, they'll restrict themselves to aiming for a good solid majority of say 50 seats (i.e. by-election proof over a five year term), thereby involving a net gain of around 20 seats and treat any result better than that as a bonus.
Personally, although not a great fan of his, I'm in the Curtice camp on this occasion in anticipating a Tory majority of around 70 seats, i.e. a net gain of circa 30 seats which I'm guessing might be derived as follows:
Labour ....... 40 LibDems ... (13) Nats ............ 3
Net Gain ... 30
Looking at a possible range of numbers, I see the Tories gaining between 30 and 50 seats from Labour, losing between 8 and18 seats to the LibDems and gaining between 1 and 5 seats from the Nats. On this basis their worst result would be a net gain of 13 seats, resulting in an overall majority of ~ 36 seats, whilst their best result would be a net gain of 47 seats, resulting in a majority of ~ 104 seats.
Why do/did people hate the FTPA so much? As much as it annoyed me during the Coalition years, it strikes me as a generally good principle that PMs cannot cut and run at the time of their own choosing.
But as May has just shown, it doesn't prevent that at all.
But that is because Corbyn was too thick to seek to outmanouvre her!
I don't know. You can argue Corbyn missed a trick with the semantics (he should have pushed for a vote of no confidence) but I struggle to see situations where a LOTO could legitimately argue against going to the country given the opposition's whole role is, you know, to seek to form a government (I suppose there would be some limited circumstances, e.g. a government seeking an election six months to a year before one was scheduled or very early into a new term, but that's about it).
But the key point is that had Corbyn forced May to go down the road of tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government , she might have had to step aside with him becoming PM for at least a short period - and perhaps for the entire Campaign period! He was an utter imbecile for failing to try that
Would that actually happen though?
The Act provides that Parliament is dissolved if a motion of no confidence is passed, unless a motion of confidence in a new government is passed within a set timeframe.
Corbyn couldn't have managed a vote of confidence in himself, as he didn't have a majority. But would he have become Prime Minister?
Thatcher didn't become PM after the no confidence vote in Callaghan. He remained PM until the election in 1979.
In Callaghan's day we had no FTPA! Once May had been defeated she would have had to step aside. At that point Corbyn would be asked to try to for a Govt with a view to obtaining an Affirmative Vote. He would not have succeeded in the latter but might have remained PM for the campaign period!
Comments
But dreams of returning to the 1997 to 2015 levels of support are just that: dreams.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/854802665116717056
From which party will the Lib Dems make the the most (net) gains from?
1) Cons
2) Lab
3) SNP
4) PC
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/793124/Brexit-EU-fishermen-UK-waters-Denmark-historical-right
http://scotsman.com/webimage/1.3759990.1430434540!/image/2147551004.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/2147551004.jpg
There's no particular reason to suppose that the Conservatives won't score somewhere north of 40%, taking into account both that the polling evidence suggests their 2015 support is holding up very well and that a large chunk of the Ukip vote has defected, as well as Labour's dire situation. A 20% lead in vote share might be a little too much to hope for even under current circumstances, but 15% looks eminently achievable.
CON 420, Lab 143, LD 9.
CON majority 190....
Lab (2 or 3)
Con (-1 to 3)
I'd go for SNP, at 3, with Lab and Con at 2.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/854652658308829186
Either way its very funny and I'm not a tory
If Labour don't go below 200, SNP still on 56, LD on, let's say 15 - that still leaves Tories with whopping 200+ majority. I know you'll be happy with 50, but you must admit the reality will be more like 150? What haven't I seen here - am I misunderstanding the numbers in your post?
Might Labour totally disintegrate ?
Doesn't change the fact that whoever believes it is wrong.
The one where the biggest swing was in Labour Leave areas - where it does Labour the most damage.
Turkey shoot time.
One of many reasons that the clock is ticking on hard Brexit without agreement.
NEW THREAD
Welcome back. A remarkably modest forecast!!
I'd probably price at 4/1, or 9/2.
This election feels like it could go one of two ways: an overwhelming national "one-off" mandate for May aka 1931/1935, just for Brexit and stability, or it could get more complicated, and blow back and she could be back in a not much improved position.
If this is anywhere close to accurate then it would presumably represent (allowing for the complications of churn) at least a 5% direct Lab to Con swing, leavened with well over a million extra Ukip voters.
The big question, of course, is can the Conservatives hold on? Anywhere from the mid-40s upwards ought presumably to translate into a three-figure majority?
(NB Just plugged those new YouGov numbers into Electoral Calculus, together with a reasonable separate guestimate for Scotland giving the SNP 45%. Came out with an overall Tory majority of 190.)
Two days before the 1 May 1997, Blair denied he was on course for a landslide. “Britain is not landslide country”, the Great Liar lied.
I'm pretty bullish about the Tories' chances, but not even I think that Labour are likely to be routed that badly, even if they deserve it.
The other thing to remember is that this is a sure-thing election coming 7 years into tory government. Motivation will be lower and there will be a decent chunk of voters who are sick of the government simply because that is what happens after 7 years in power.
If the Tory hierarchy have any sense, they'll restrict themselves to aiming for a good solid majority of say 50 seats (i.e. by-election proof over a five year term), thereby involving a net gain of around 20 seats and treat any result better than that as a bonus.
Personally, although not a great fan of his, I'm in the Curtice camp on this occasion in anticipating a Tory majority of around 70 seats, i.e. a net gain of circa 30 seats which I'm guessing might be derived as follows:
Labour ....... 40
LibDems ... (13)
Nats ............ 3
Net Gain ... 30
Looking at a possible range of numbers, I see the Tories gaining between 30 and 50 seats from Labour, losing between 8 and18 seats to the LibDems and gaining between 1 and 5 seats from the Nats. On this basis their worst result would be a net gain of 13 seats, resulting in an overall majority of ~ 36 seats, whilst their best result would be a net gain of 47 seats, resulting in a majority of ~ 104 seats.