On UNS, Labour would lose everything up to and including Sedgefield on an 8.5% swing.
We can assume however, that the swing will be lower in some seats, and higher in others. Assuming a maximum swing of about 14%, then the Conservatives could potentially win places like Wentworth, Rochdale, and Eccles.
What was the highest swing in 1997 ? Brent North ? It must have been nearly double the national swing.
Yes. IIRC, the swing was 19%, compared to 10.5% overall. There was a further 10% swing in 2001. In two elections it went from a 28% Con lead to 30% Lab.
If indeed a swing of up to 17% occurs (8.5% above the average) then Labour could lose a seat like Wigan or Leigh.
Mrs May is uninspiring and that's helping her. She's cautious, thinks carefully before doing anything at all, and is a boring speaker. That's why the silly talk of her being Erdogan makes the accusers look barmy.
Faced with the uncertainty of Brexit, and the wild lunacy of Jezza, she only has to plod carefully on. The tortoise defeating the mad March hare.
Mutti I think is a better equivalence.
Yes, I think what they have in different ways is the common touch. Merkel was asked recently about anti-elitist populism and her answer was basically that she is as much one of 'the people' as anyone else, and it's believable.
Can those in the know check if the polling companies have done any twiddling their models in the past week or so / anything weird in the data tables.
I am just really struggling to work out what has happened over the past week to move 15% leads to 20%+ leads.
Yes, inexplicable. Seems like UKIP dropping like a stone finally registering, but why now.
Odd question, but I wonder if Cameron will be doing any campaigning - people vary from May totally ignoring all he did, to 'she's not really altering that much from Cameron', so I wonder if they'll make use of him - he may not appear to working classes and women like May, but he has appeal in other areas.
My source who told me yesterday that Osborne was going to stand down as an MP says May and Cameron are in talks for Dave to campaign in the South West.
What would he campaign on? Vote for may to ensure Walter softy brexit?
To warn people of the dangers of Corbyn.
Dave can do the dirty political attacks without looking like a nasty Tory.
Yes, we saw quite a lot of the attacks during the EU referendum campaign. In the end many people seemed to just discount all the threats.
Should we be anticipating a re-run, with a different target?
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
I am sure when the public hear more about corbyn ozil law to ensure a maximum wage they will be back on board.
That's what is so bonkers about this poll, I can't see a Labour campaign with Corbyn and McDonnell leading being a net vote winner, and the potential for serious slip-ups is huge.
Another reminder: in each of the last six general elections, Labour's final result on polling day was lower than their polling average two months beforehand.
*IF* the pattern holds then they could sink towards 20%. But I have a hard time envisioning Labour - even under Corbyn - falling below 25% this time around. It's probably not logical of me, but it just feels too good to be true.
The %age of the UK that would vote for Corbyn based on policies is probably around 10%, there's the base for you. I reckon that Labour have lost most of their 'vote for a donkey with a red rosette' cohort that has kept their base so high recently. There is a small chance that there could be crossover between them and the LDs imo.
Cameron and May are the right leaders for the right time.
Cameron - started with under 200 seats, PM five years later, faced huge deficit "whoever wins will be out of power for a generation", another five years later he got a Con majority.
Could May have done that? Of course not. Cameron was electorally more successful than anyone could have possibly even dreamt.
But May is the right PM for Brexit. Cameron couldn't go on and May is widely trusted to deliver Brexit. And she doesn't have the "posh" drawback that Cameron had so can reach people now who Cameron couldn't.
My view entirely. There's a thread header in that.
On UNS, Labour would lose everything up to and including Sedgefield on an 8.5% swing.
We can assume however, that the swing will be lower in some seats, and higher in others. Assuming a maximum swing of about 14%, then the Conservatives could potentially win places like Wentworth, Rochdale, and Eccles.
What was the highest swing in 1997 ? Brent North ? It must have been nearly double the national swing.
Yes. IIRC, the swing was 19%, compared to 10.5% overall. There was a further 10% swing in 2001. In two elections it went from a 28% Con lead to 30% Lab.
If indeed a swing of up to 17% occurs (8.5% above the average) then Labour could lose a seat like Wigan or Leigh.
Is anyone else on here prepared to say they haven't decided who they are going to vote for? I was hoping I wouldn't have to make my mind up on such an unappetising menu until 2020. And there's the locals as well. Maybe another protest vote for the Greens. I quite liked their idea for a 4 day week. Not saying it's practical but our long hours low productivity culture needs shaking up.
The problem with a four day week is that I've got a suspicion I'd end up doing five days equivalent work under more pressure and for less pay.
But again there seems to be no concept of boosting productivity.
Cameron and May are the right leaders for the right time.
Cameron - started with under 200 seats, PM five years later, faced huge deficit "whoever wins will be out of power for a generation", another five years later he got a Con majority.
Could May have done that? Of course not. Cameron was electorally more successful than anyone could have possibly even dreamt.
But May is the right PM for Brexit. Cameron couldn't go on and May is widely trusted to deliver Brexit. And she doesn't have the "posh" drawback that Cameron had so can reach people now who Cameron couldn't.
My view entirely. There's a thread header in that.
No need - it seems we all agree on that viewpoint!
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
I'm trusting the EU to screw her to the wall and I hope they're unmoved by this kind of thing.
If the LD share rises during the campaign - though I see no reason why it would dramatically - would it eat into the Tory score or the Lab score?
I think the LD's are largely scrapping for a share of the 48% that are primarily Labour, Green, SNP, Plaid, LD etc.
This looks very much like a rerun of Scotland 2015 to me, with the Tories as the SNP and the rest playing the divided, factional unionists, tearing chunks from each other and making little inroad against the real opponent.
I'm told the Tory manifesto is going to be very comprehensive and detailed so their Lordships can't delay/derail Mrs May's agenda because of the Salisbury-Addison convention.
I'm told the Tory manifesto is going to be very comprehensive and detailed so their Lordships can't delay/derail Mrs May's agenda because of the Salisbury-Addison convention.
Sounds like this election isnt quite as "snap" as claimed!
On UNS, Labour would lose everything up to and including Sedgefield on an 8.5% swing.
We can assume however, that the swing will be lower in some seats, and higher in others. Assuming a maximum swing of about 14%, then the Conservatives could potentially win places like Wentworth, Rochdale, and Eccles.
What was the highest swing in 1997 ? Brent North ? It must have been nearly double the national swing.
Yes. IIRC, the swing was 19%, compared to 10.5% overall. There was a further 10% swing in 2001. In two elections it went from a 28% Con lead to 30% Lab.
If indeed a swing of up to 17% occurs (8.5% above the average) then Labour could lose a seat like Wigan or Leigh.
Rhodes Boyson was quite a character.
If he stood in London today on the platform he ran on (and was elected on) then, he'd probably be lynched.
Cameron and May are the right leaders for the right time.
Cameron - started with under 200 seats, PM five years later, faced huge deficit "whoever wins will be out of power for a generation", another five years later he got a Con majority.
Could May have done that? Of course not. Cameron was electorally more successful than anyone could have possibly even dreamt.
But May is the right PM for Brexit. Cameron couldn't go on and May is widely trusted to deliver Brexit. And she doesn't have the "posh" drawback that Cameron had so can reach people now who Cameron couldn't.
My view entirely. There's a thread header in that.
No need - it seems we all agree on that viewpoint!
We all agree Corbyn is crap and the LDs are on course for world domination, doesn't stop threads on them
On these numbers, is May on for the John Major "most votes cast" record?
I can't see turnout being that high given the lack of any risk of a Labour victory.
Yes, I was thinking the same sort of thing. It could be that a lot of moderate Labour voters will not bother to go to the polls at all because they don't see any party representing their views. Turnout could be 60% if that happens.
Spookily like my voting record - but I haven't switched to Tory yet. We liked the Common Market and we remember the Trots. It's the revenge of the old gits (and we vote, you know).
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
On UNS, Labour would lose everything up to and including Sedgefield on an 8.5% swing.
We can assume however, that the swing will be lower in some seats, and higher in others. Assuming a maximum swing of about 14%, then the Conservatives could potentially win places like Wentworth, Rochdale, and Eccles.
Will Mrs Duffy come out for Mrs May? That's what I'm waiting for!
All these new Tory voters.. where are they flocking from?
On these numbers, is May on for the John Major "most votes cast" record?
I can't see turnout being that high given the lack of any risk of a Labour victory.
Yes, I was thinking the same sort of thing. It could be that a lot of moderate Labour voters will not bother to go to the polls at all because they don't see any party representing their views. Turnout could be 60% if that happens.
That being the case, is there a proxy bet somewhere to take cash off those who get overexcited by her likely vote share?
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
I think we can - there's a difference between presenting as being happy with hard as nails brexit, and promising, cast iron promising, that we will get a hard brexit.
The defection is Bob Marshall-Andrews. What a non-event.
This Bob Marshall-Andrews? "Bob Marshall-Andrews MP has claimed £118,000 for expenses at his second home, including stereo equipment, extensive redecoration and a pair of Kenyan carpets"
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
There are some cracking gems of analysis here tonight. PB is at its best when it is at its boldest. Election time sharpens the hive mind, evidently.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
I think we can - there's a difference between presenting as being happy with hard as nails brexit, and promising, cast iron promising, that we will get a hard brexit.
It's all just posturing for the negotiations. She wants to go to Brussels and say, "You have to give me a deal on my terms because the people have voted for it."
Gordon Brown is now wondering what might have been.
Not for the first time I imagine.
Is there any article out there which might give us an insight into what the result might have been? Perhaps by a now long retired Labourite?
The polling at the time suggested it would be a Labour majority but smaller than in 2005. Brown didn't want that. Of course what might have changed during the campaign. Given's Brown's lack of communication skills it might not have been a Labour majority at all.
Gordon Brown is now wondering what might have been.
Not for the first time I imagine.
Is there any article out there which might give us an insight into what the result might have been? Perhaps by a now long retired Labourite?
The polling at the time suggested it would be a Labour majority but smaller than in 2005. Brown didn't want that. Of course what might have changed during the campaign. Given's Brown's lack of communication skills it might not have been a Labour majority at all.
That wasn't quite what I was looking for. Perhaps a commment piece that exposes the bullishness of New Labour at the time, by one of its devotees?
Is anyone else on here prepared to say they haven't decided who they are going to vote for? I was hoping I wouldn't have to make my mind up on such an unappetising menu until 2020. And there's the locals as well. Maybe another protest vote for the Greens. I quite liked their idea for a 4 day week. Not saying it's practical but our long hours low productivity culture needs shaking up.
Yes, I haven't. It's a former Lib Dem constituency that went Conservative in 2010. depends who the Lib Dem candidate is, probably.
It really does look like the Brexit negotiations will come down to May standing on the cliff edge and daring the EU to push her over. So far every leader who's tried that has ultimately backed down. Could May be the first to win at this game?
The %age of the UK that would vote for Corbyn based on policies is probably around 10%, there's the base for you. I reckon that Labour have lost most of their 'vote for a donkey with a red rosette' cohort that has kept their base so high recently. There is a small chance that there could be crossover between them and the LDs imo.
No, I very much doubt it. The Lib Dems are still historically weak: it's taken them the whole period since the Brexit vote to climb from 8% to 10-11%, still under half of the support gathered under Clegg.
Labour, on the other hand, still has a substantial residual core vote:
* It is quite strongly favoured by the 18-24s, even if they're the smallest age cohort and the one least likely to vote. * It's still the party of choice for the remaining heavily unionised sectors of the workforce, principally state employees (teachers, NHS, civil servants) and rail workers. * There's the ideologically committed section of the vote - hardcore Far Leftists, their fellow travellers amongst the metropolitan upper-middle classes, and sympathisers willing to at least consider a Far Left Government amongst the general population, probably not less than 10% of the electorate as you suggested. * Working age people who are mainly or entirely long-term benefit dependent are likely to favour Labour as the party of benefits. * I'm sure there's still quite a lot of brand loyalty, red rosette on a pig voters who still haven't thought about changing parties, or can't bear to cross over to any of the alternatives even if they have. * There's also the less economically successful fraction of the BAME vote, who may not be willing to touch the Tories but probably aren't comfortable with crossing over to Ukip as many of their white working class counterparts have done. This group also includes a significant number of Muslim voters, whom research before and after the last GE suggests are overwhelmingly pro-Labour, and many of whom are probably attracted to the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli and anti-Western tendencies of the present leadership.
I stand to be corrected by events, but I simply don't see a Labour/Lib Dem crossover as being in any way likely. This side of the election, anyway...
Gordon Brown is now wondering what might have been.
Not for the first time I imagine.
Is there any article out there which might give us an insight into what the result might have been? Perhaps by a now long retired Labourite?
The polling at the time suggested it would be a Labour majority but smaller than in 2005. Brown didn't want that. Of course what might have changed during the campaign. Given's Brown's lack of communication skills it might not have been a Labour majority at all.
That wasn't quite what I was looking for. Perhaps a commment piece that exposes the bullishness of New Labour at the time, by one of its devotees?
What's more likely to happen first/at all in a poll before the GE?
1) Tories to poll 50% and above
2) Lab to poll sub 20%
2. There remains real potential for the public to see more of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott in this election campaign. Considering that just 5% of the public that currently support Lab need to switch to Greens/LD/Cons to put Labour below 20%, I'd put it at probable instead of possible.
The defection is Bob Marshall-Andrews. What a non-event.
This Bob Marshall-Andrews? "Bob Marshall-Andrews MP has claimed £118,000 for expenses at his second home, including stereo equipment, extensive redecoration and a pair of Kenyan carpets"
Why would anyone want him?
Apparently he's big mates with Lord Razzall (or, as he'd be called in Scotland, Lord Randan).
FWIW Spreadex has a mid-spread value of 83.3 seat Tory Majority (after coping with their enormous 11.2 seat spread between their buy and sell prices which will surely put off all but the bravest from even considering playing this market).
Rounding this up to an even 84 seat majority, this implies the Tories winning 367 seats (i.e. 325 + 42) which looks about right to me, possibly a tad on the high side.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
My assessment: I don't think Theresa May sees politics as a game, or jolly good sport, as Osborne, in particular, did. She has a clear idea of what she wants. When she says something, she means it, and she follows through.
But I think we are still conditioned by Osborne's time at the helm, as the chief strategist of the previous administration, which was a previous administration even though it's the same party.
That doesn't mean May isn't ruthless, or not prone to play politics, or won't adjust her objectives to fit reflect changing economic and realpolitik realities.
Gordon Brown is now wondering what might have been.
Not for the first time I imagine.
Is there any article out there which might give us an insight into what the result might have been? Perhaps by a now long retired Labourite?
The polling at the time suggested it would be a Labour majority but smaller than in 2005. Brown didn't want that. Of course what might have changed during the campaign. Given's Brown's lack of communication skills it might not have been a Labour majority at all.
That wasn't quite what I was looking for. Perhaps a commment piece that exposes the bullishness of New Labour at the time, by one of its devotees?
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
I think we can - there's a difference between presenting as being happy with hard as nails brexit, and promising, cast iron promising, that we will get a hard brexit.
The whole depiction of hard and soft Brexit is a nonsense.
The variations that are possible, and indeed likely, are manifold.
Has anyone tried to describe Soft-ish Remain yet, or is that what Dave tried and failed to sell us?
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
I'm trusting the EU to screw her to the wall and I hope they're unmoved by this kind of thing.
Such a patriot - you actually want to see your country get screwed over.
I know this is kind of old news, but what would be the appropriate punishment for such a horrific crime. You expect it to happen to some poor woman who is victim of a so called "honour" crime in Bangladesh not London.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
I'm trusting the EU to screw her to the wall and I hope they're unmoved by this kind of thing.
Such a patriot - you actually want to see your country get screwed over.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
I think we can - there's a difference between presenting as being happy with hard as nails brexit, and promising, cast iron promising, that we will get a hard brexit.
Softish brexit perhaps but not soft brexit. No mention of payments in the headline, could indicate that we will try and buy our cake and eat it to an extent. Also the DM will be putting their own spin on this specifically to try and force May into a diamond-level brexit, and treat it as a fait accompli. The wording of the manifesto is likely to be much vaguer - we heard May say the other day that she doesn't intend o go into detail on her negotiating positions during this campaign after all.
It really does look like the Brexit negotiations will come down to May standing on the cliff edge and daring the EU to push her over. So far every leader who's tried that has ultimately backed down. Could May be the first to win at this game?
How many EU leaders who didn't have the begging bowl out have lost?
It really does look like the Brexit negotiations will come down to May standing on the cliff edge and daring the EU to push her over. So far every leader who's tried that has ultimately backed down. Could May be the first to win at this game?
How many EU leaders who didn't have the begging bowl out have lost?
We do have the begging bowl out. If we don't get a deal, we get booted over the cliff edge with all the economic disruption that entails.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
I think we can - there's a difference between presenting as being happy with hard as nails brexit, and promising, cast iron promising, that we will get a hard brexit.
The whole depiction of hard and soft Brexit is a nonsense.
The variations that are possible, and indeed likely, are manifold.
Has anyone tried to describe Soft-ish Remain yet, or is that what Dave tried and failed to sell us?
It may be difficult to define where soft and hard begins, people will disagree, but seeking single market access and so on would be on the softer end of the scale, and leaving with no deal whatsoever at the hard end - continuity remainers want a deal as good as we had in the EU, which is impossible, and hardcore brexiters insist only their version of brexit, the hardest possible, is real, which is nonsense. Some elements May seeks might be softish, but it is quite clear she is going for a pretty damn hard brexit.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
At GE2015, I knew it was coming, so I took a three month sabbatical from work to concentrate on canvassing and working on PB.
This time, no sabbatical, just taken June 8th and 9th off from work.
Keep strong Mr Eagles.
In 2015 I took a fortnight off, my gf was away, and so I spent most days outside the house because of a new kitchen being fitted. This time we have a new puppy and the election pretty much coincides with my busiest time of year. Joy!
I'm told the Tory manifesto is going to be very comprehensive and detailed so their Lordships can't delay/derail Mrs May's agenda because of the Salisbury-Addison convention.
Sounds like this election isnt quite as "snap" as claimed!
That precise thought occurred to me also, i.e. that the option had been on the stocks for several weeks at least, with a good deal of manifesto planning going on in the background. I suspect that initially a GE, were it to go ahead, was planned to coincide with the local elections, but that somewhere along the process there was a timing hiccup which held things up for a month. Clearly the Easter break didn't help.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
My assessment: I don't think Theresa May sees politics as a game, or jolly good sport, as Osborne, in particular, did. She has a clear idea of what she wants. When she says something, she means it, and she follows through.
But I think we are still conditioned by Osborne's time at the helm, as the chief strategist of the previous administration, which was a previous administration even though it's the same party.
That doesn't mean May isn't ruthless, or not prone to play politics, or won't adjust her objectives to fit reflect changing economic and realpolitik realities.
But her politics is politics with a purpose.
You can claim many things for May, but 'when she says something, she means it' is certainly not one of them.
As one of those in that age bracket we can broadly be split into two blocks: those that one a stable economic future with a decent economy, seeing as the LDs aren't promising to reverse Brexit, we'll probably vote Blue, with some LDs. Then there are the left-wing sort, almost all of which are very strongly pro-EU, and therefore won't vote Labour, but will vote Green and LD (with a few Labour).
The people who have traditionally voted Labour have largely left for UKIP, and the few that haven't will be less than enamoured with the whole actively supporting terrorists shtick that the Lab senior command had going on.
I agree that the less successful BAME vote as well as the unionised hardcore and champagne socialists will still vote for Labour, but I'm not convinced that there's enough of them. Unless you agree with all three of Labour's views on Brexit, the economy and foreign affairs then there is a party that better matches you (Green, Con, LD respectively).
Furthermore the election campaign will give the Lib Dems a lot more coverage in the public consciousness than they've had over the past year as well as the imminent vote sharpening people's mind. I reckon that we could see the two meeting at around 18%, while the Tories cross over 50%.
Nicola Sturgeon still talking about a Progressive Alliance. Has anyone consulted Corbyn on whether he agrees with the idea?
He rightly said no. A progressive alliance with SNP would destroy their chances in England more so than they already are. A Green/LD alliance makes sense, and maybe those two unofficially with Labour in certain seats, but the SNP are too toxic in England for it.
Nicola Sturgeon still talking about a Progressive Alliance. Has anyone consulted Corbyn on whether he agrees with the idea?
Would she want him to accept? Surely she wants to say 'We offered to work with them to stop the Tories, but they didn't, which is the same as helping the Tories'
Cameron and May are the right leaders for the right time.
Cameron - started with under 200 seats, PM five years later, faced huge deficit "whoever wins will be out of power for a generation", another five years later he got a Con majority.
Could May have done that? Of course not. Cameron was electorally more successful than anyone could have possibly even dreamt.
But May is the right PM for Brexit. Cameron couldn't go on and May is widely trusted to deliver Brexit. And she doesn't have the "posh" drawback that Cameron had so can reach people now who Cameron couldn't.
Totally agree. One of the most defining moments of his career as Tory Leader and Leader of the Opposition was to face down Brown in the Autumn of 2007 when he was thinking of going of going for that early Autumn GE.
Being someone who would have preferred a softer variant of Brexit, the soft brexiters as a whole have been rather trusting, all statements to the contrary, that May will go for that eventually.
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
If I was attempting to negotiate the softest, fluffiest Brexit I could envisage, I would be giving every indication that I was after -or would at least be content with - hard-as-nails Brexit. This is where Cameron was an utter fuckwit.TMay HAS to be seen to be going for hard Brexit.
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit. We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
My assessment: I don't think Theresa May sees politics as a game, or jolly good sport, as Osborne, in particular, did. She has a clear idea of what she wants. When she says something, she means it, and she follows through.
But I think we are still conditioned by Osborne's time at the helm, as the chief strategist of the previous administration, which was a previous administration even though it's the same party.
That doesn't mean May isn't ruthless, or not prone to play politics, or won't adjust her objectives to fit reflect changing economic and realpolitik realities.
But her politics is politics with a purpose.
You can claim many things for May, but 'when she says something, she means it' is certainly not one of them.
Exactly - I don't castigate her for making a political decision, but it was that nonsense logic which people were saying was a prime reason no early GE would happen. She is not some unusual politician in that regard, she'll go back on her word if she feels it warranted. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
I'm told the Tory manifesto is going to be very comprehensive and detailed so their Lordships can't delay/derail Mrs May's agenda because of the Salisbury-Addison convention.
Sounds like this election isnt quite as "snap" as claimed!
That precise thought occurred to me also, i.e. that the option had been on the stocks for several weeks at least, with a good deal of manifesto planning going on in the background. I suspect that initially a GE, were it to go ahead, was planned to coincide with the local elections, but that somewhere along the process there was a timing hiccup which held things up for a month. Clearly the Easter break didn't help.
I should imagine it's been in the "works" pretty much from the start of TM's Premiership and certainly since all the stuff with Gina Millar.
I'm sure they genuinely were not certain A50 would be triggered and if the Commons or Lords had continued to play silly buggers she'd have called an election then.
At GE2015, I knew it was coming, so I took a three month sabbatical from work to concentrate on canvassing and working on PB.
This time, no sabbatical, just taken June 8th and 9th off from work.
Keep strong Mr Eagles.
In 2015 I took a fortnight off, my gf was away, and so I spent most days outside the house because of a new kitchen being fitted. This time we have a new puppy and the election pretty much coincides with my busiest time of year. Joy!
Between August 2014 and May 2015, I spent an inordinate amount of time compiling my ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week), such that I cut my railway exploration down to a minimum
FWIW Spreadex has a mid-spread value of 83.3 seat Tory Majority (after coping with their enormous 11.2 seat spread between their buy and sell prices which will surely put off all but the bravest from even considering playing this market).
Rounding this up to an even 84 seat majority, this implies the Tories winning 367 seats (i.e. 325 + 42) which looks about right to me, possibly a tad on the high side.
Could be a tad high, or a tad low. No-one really knows. Definitely a fools' market for now.
Nicola Sturgeon still talking about a Progressive Alliance. Has anyone consulted Corbyn on whether he agrees with the idea?
He rightly said no. A progressive alliance with SNP would destroy their chances in England more so than they already are. A Green/LD alliance makes sense, and maybe those two unofficially with Labour in certain seats, but the SNP are too toxic in England for it.
The SNP have nothing to offer in an alliance, anyway. They already hold 56 of 59 seats. They can't stand aside in English seats, and obviously won't in 56 Scottish seats. So why would anyone make a deal with them?
If people want to consider coalitions that's a post-election question. Electoral pacts or alliances are matters of voter arithmetic, and the numbers don't add up. And that's before we even get to the potential voter backlash against such a move.
I'm told the Tory manifesto is going to be very comprehensive and detailed so their Lordships can't delay/derail Mrs May's agenda because of the Salisbury-Addison convention.
Sounds like this election isnt quite as "snap" as claimed!
That precise thought occurred to me also, i.e. that the option had been on the stocks for several weeks at least, with a good deal of manifesto planning going on in the background. I suspect that initially a GE, were it to go ahead, was planned to coincide with the local elections, but that somewhere along the process there was a timing hiccup which held things up for a month. Clearly the Easter break didn't help.
I should imagine it's been in the "works" pretty much from the start of TM's Premiership and certainly since all the stuff with Gina Millar.
I'm sure they genuinely were not certain A50 would be triggered and if the Commons or Lords had continued to play silly buggers she'd have called an election then.
Comments
If indeed a swing of up to 17% occurs (8.5% above the average) then Labour could lose a seat like Wigan or Leigh.
Should we be anticipating a re-run, with a different target?
If that is so, it will be u-turning, as I cannot see her telling hard brexiters they can go hang during the campaign.
confounding them.
Especially if Ed Balls was Labour candidate.
This looks very much like a rerun of Scotland 2015 to me, with the Tories as the SNP and the rest playing the divided, factional unionists, tearing chunks from each other and making little inroad against the real opponent.
Not for the first time I imagine.
If he stood in London today on the platform he ran on (and was elected on) then, he'd probably be lynched.
Spookily like my voting record - but I haven't switched to Tory yet. We liked the Common Market and we remember the Trots. It's the revenge of the old gits (and we vote, you know).
Mind you, if I was after hard-as-nails Brexit, I would also be giving the indication that I was after hard-as-nails Brexit.
We can conclude that TMay is not an idiot, at least in this respect. But we can't draw any conclusions about what Brexit we will end up with.
rcs1000 said:
» show previous quotes
SNP (2 or 3)
Lab (2 or 3)
Con (-1 to 3)
I'd go for SNP, at 3, with Lab and Con at 2.
Hmmm I doubt they will take 3 in Scotland , do you want a small wager if you can frame a bet
Why would anyone want him?
1) Tories to poll 50% and above
2) Lab to poll sub 20%
Labour, on the other hand, still has a substantial residual core vote:
* It is quite strongly favoured by the 18-24s, even if they're the smallest age cohort and the one least likely to vote.
* It's still the party of choice for the remaining heavily unionised sectors of the workforce, principally state employees (teachers, NHS, civil servants) and rail workers.
* There's the ideologically committed section of the vote - hardcore Far Leftists, their fellow travellers amongst the metropolitan upper-middle classes, and sympathisers willing to at least consider a Far Left Government amongst the general population, probably not less than 10% of the electorate as you suggested.
* Working age people who are mainly or entirely long-term benefit dependent are likely to favour Labour as the party of benefits.
* I'm sure there's still quite a lot of brand loyalty, red rosette on a pig voters who still haven't thought about changing parties, or can't bear to cross over to any of the alternatives even if they have.
* There's also the less economically successful fraction of the BAME vote, who may not be willing to touch the Tories but probably aren't comfortable with crossing over to Ukip as many of their white working class counterparts have done. This group also includes a significant number of Muslim voters, whom research before and after the last GE suggests are overwhelmingly pro-Labour, and many of whom are probably attracted to the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli and anti-Western tendencies of the present leadership.
I stand to be corrected by events, but I simply don't see a Labour/Lib Dem crossover as being in any way likely. This side of the election, anyway...
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=bob marshall andrews&src=typd
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
At this general elelction, UNS will be as useful as a condom with a hole in both ends.
Rounding this up to an even 84 seat majority, this implies the Tories winning 367 seats (i.e. 325 + 42) which looks about right to me, possibly a tad on the high side.
But I think we are still conditioned by Osborne's time at the helm, as the chief strategist of the previous administration, which was a previous administration even though it's the same party.
That doesn't mean May isn't ruthless, or not prone to play politics, or won't adjust her objectives to fit reflect changing economic and realpolitik realities.
But her politics is politics with a purpose.
Whatever happened to Mr S Simon. Presumably he shrank into obscurity and never sought electoral office again?
The variations that are possible, and indeed likely, are manifold.
Has anyone tried to describe Soft-ish Remain yet, or is that what Dave tried and failed to sell us?
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/18/home-of-ferne-mccanns-lover-arthur-collins-raided-by-police-following-london-acid-attack-6582771/
At GE2015, I knew it was coming, so I took a three month sabbatical from work to concentrate on canvassing and working on PB.
This time, no sabbatical, just taken June 8th and 9th off from work.
I thought BMA was eurosceptical? Why has he gone from Lab to Lib?
In 2015 I took a fortnight off, my gf was away, and so I spent most days outside the house because of a new kitchen being fitted. This time we have a new puppy and the election pretty much coincides with my busiest time of year. Joy!
I suspect that initially a GE, were it to go ahead, was planned to coincide with the local elections, but that somewhere along the process there was a timing hiccup which held things up for a month. Clearly the Easter break didn't help.
The people who have traditionally voted Labour have largely left for UKIP, and the few that haven't will be less than enamoured with the whole actively supporting terrorists shtick that the Lab senior command had going on.
I agree that the less successful BAME vote as well as the unionised hardcore and champagne socialists will still vote for Labour, but I'm not convinced that there's enough of them. Unless you agree with all three of Labour's views on Brexit, the economy and foreign affairs then there is a party that better matches you (Green, Con, LD respectively).
Furthermore the election campaign will give the Lib Dems a lot more coverage in the public consciousness than they've had over the past year as well as the imminent vote sharpening people's mind. I reckon that we could see the two meeting at around 18%, while the Tories cross over 50%.
I'm sure they genuinely were not certain A50 would be triggered and if the Commons or Lords had continued to play silly buggers she'd have called an election then.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=bob marshall andrews&src=typd
If people want to consider coalitions that's a post-election question. Electoral pacts or alliances are matters of voter arithmetic, and the numbers don't add up. And that's before we even get to the potential voter backlash against such a move.