Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
The CC elections will give you a good idea about Burnley , composed of 6 CC divisions 2013 result Lab 8717 LDem 5274 Con 2189 UKIP 1956 BNP 585 Ind 217
FPT SimonStCare noted, apropos of Communisat support for Labour 'An interesting factoid Mr OKC, cheers.” and went on "If it’s not too rude, how many GE’s have you seen?”
I can recall 1945, and my mother telling her sister that my father, who still away in the RAF, wanted her to vote for Ray Gunter, the local Labour candidate, and she didn’t want to! So everything since then. Done everything; leafletter, canvasser, knocker-up, counting agent, Agent, and of course every-time voter Everything except actually being a candidate!
Ray Gunter, there is a name to conjure with. It is probably advancing age but the Labour politicians of old seem like giants compared to today's crop.
My father knew him slightly, from his youth in South Wales. Possibly school, but I have no means of finding out now!
Forgive the bad language - but literally 'con' means 'cunt' in French. 'Connard' means something very much akin to 'cunt' (for a man - 'connasse' for a woman). The '...ard' / '...asse' ending is a kind of diminutive. Calling someone a 'connard' is the same therefore as calling them 'a little cunt'. Interestingly, it is worse in French to add 'espece de' in front of pretty much any noun insult. Being an 'espece de con' is ruder than being simply a 'con'. Ho hum. (They also use 'putain' - literally 'whore' - as a qualifier. So 'putain chaleur' means 'bloody heat'.)
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
Agreed. I voted Tory in every GE, in Cambridge, since my first (1992), then spoiled my ballot last time, because they were all so hopeless, and I'm voting for the LD candidate this time - because he is the best constituency MP. It won't take many like me to turn Cambridge LD again, and the candidate has continued to work the constituency very hard.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
The CC elections will give you a good idea about Burnley , composed of 6 CC divisions 2013 result Lab 8717 LDem 5274 Con 2189 UKIP 1956 BNP 585 Ind 217
A reasonable guide to the 2015 result
The Tory price of 25-1 is surely too big when they have 70% of the Brexit vote in a 66% leave constituency, particularly with what looks to be a low winning bar.
I think it is a Lib Dem gain, but 25-1 looks huge to me for the Tories.
Tories on 32% amongst remainers ? Or 32% of the Tory vote is remainers ?
The latter.
From the most recent YouGov (would have used ICM but neither recent poll has tables up yet), the Remain vote splits:
Lab 36 Con 27 LD 23 UKIP 0
The Leave vote is
Con 70 Lab 12 UKIP 10 LD 2
Those figures raise some question marks over how well the Lib Dems will do in some of the West Country marginal seats, particularly in Cornwall and Devon.
Yes, I'd be cautious about betting on LD gains in Leave seats unless you've very strong local information (by which I do not mean people tweeting "Gr8 reception on doorstep! Opposition supporters flocking to us!").
However, Cornwall (and some other places) are a bit of a law unto themselves. I'd certainly not put it past the LDs to gain some Leave seats back, especially where the ex-MP is going again. By-elections in Cornwall since 2015 have also been outstanding for them - we'll know more next week, but there do seem to be more than a few little local difficulties for the Tories there.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same?
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same
The Tories will be on about 600 seats if they win Cambridge.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same
I think that underestimates the amount of work the LD candidate has continued to put in, and the near invisibility of both the MP and the Tories in the City. The LD candidate still has a lot of friends in the local press, too.
There's also a powerful argument to be made to Tory voters that the best way to hit Labour is to vote LD in this constituency - better Orange than give succour to Corbyn.
Con 2015 vote retention (95%!) and significant LD-> Con leakage doesn't bode well for LD taking NE Fife or Edinburgh West
I think Tories will vote tactically to help the Lib Dems in Fife NE where they have little chance and Rennie's success has made it clear who is the leading Unionist. I am not nearly so sure that they will in Edinburgh making it more likely in my view that the SNP will hold on against split opposition.
That's a nonsense article because a lot of those 26 won't be around.
Also, you could argue that losing heavily makes it harder for the Corbynites because the MEPs will be a higher proportion and he got no support at all from that quarter.
Cat Smith is the only Corbynite certain to lose their seat.
It's just statistical noise. There's been no real change. You could equally pick the fortnight ago figure. In the months covered by the graphic, Right has varied from 44-46, and Wrong from 42-44.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same?
Maybe. But 2015 feels like a lifetime ago in light of political events since.
Remember 2015?
Cameron (you know - pudgy faced chap, used to be PM) wanting a majority to ensure strong and stable Government as opposed to the five preceding years?
Osborne at the peak of his powers, the master of all he surveyed?
Miliband handing over the reins to Burnham, Cooper, or some other slightly bland New Labour type?
Lib Dems on a Travolta/Micawber strategy of staying alive and hoping something turns up (goodness knows what)?
Obama preparing handover notes for Clinton (or possibly Rubio if there was a shock result)?
Forgive the bad language - but literally 'con' means 'cunt' in French. 'Connard' means something very much akin to 'cunt' (for a man - 'connasse' for a woman). The '...ard' / '...asse' ending is a kind of diminutive. Calling someone a 'connard' is the same therefore as calling them 'a little cunt'. Interestingly, it is worse in French to add 'espece de' in front of pretty much any noun insult. Being an 'espece de con' is ruder than being simply a 'con'. Ho hum. (They also use 'putain' - literally 'whore' - as a qualifier. So 'putain chaleur' means 'bloody heat'.)
I'm fairly sure putain has additional rudeness due to its similarity with Petain.
That said, French swearing is broadly rubbish - over-wordy and imprecise - and the lads I knew over there would happily and readily curse in Anglo-Saxon.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same?
Maybe. But 2015 feels like a lifetime ago in light of political events since.
Remember 2015?
Cameron (you know - pudgy faced chap, used to be PM) wanting a majority to ensure strong and stable Government as opposed to the five preceding years?
Osborne at the peak of his powers, the master of all he surveyed?
Miliband handing over the reins to Burnham, Cooper, or some other slightly bland New Labour type?
Lib Dems on a Travolta/Micawber strategy of staying alive and hoping something turns up (goodness knows what)?
Obama preparing handover notes for Clinton (or possibly Rubio if there was a shock result)?
It does seem an awfully long time ago. Interesting times - as in the curse.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same
The Tories will be on about 600 seats if they win Cambridge.
Not at all. Labour only narrowly won the seat in 1945 & 1966. In every other post war election the seat was Tory - until 1992. In 2010 the Tories were in second place just 13% behind the LibDems. The latter are polling much lower now and the Tories a lot higher. Tactical voting in 2015 resulted in artificially high figures there for the LibDems at Tory expense. If the 2010 result is treated as the Tory base , this seat is very winnable for them.
Con 2015 vote retention (95%!) and significant LD-> Con leakage doesn't bode well for LD taking NE Fife or Edinburgh West
I think Tories will vote tactically to help the Lib Dems in Fife NE where they have little chance and Rennie's success has made it clear who is the leading Unionist. I am not nearly so sure that they will in Edinburgh making it more likely in my view that the SNP will hold on against split opposition.
Isn't Edinburgh West an ultra-savvy, extremely highly educated constituency? Also, don't Tories have better targets nearby?
I may well be corrected by those with local knowledge, but I'd rather assumed that (with the MSP a LD too) the prospects of the LDs making a convincing tactical case were good in Edinburgh West.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Yes, it's seriously unbelievable that they will come anywhere near 30% overall. The national polls are wrong, and I think they're wrong in Labour's favour.
Yes, it's seriously unbelievable that they will come anywhere near 30% overall. The national polls are wrong, and I think they're wrong in Labour's favour.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same
The Tories will be on about 600 seats if they win Cambridge.
Not at all. Labour only narrowly won the seat in 1945 & 1966. In every other post war election the seat was Tory - until 1992. In 2010 the Tories were in second place just 13% behind the LibDems. The latter are polling much lower now and the Tories a lot higher. Tactical voting in 2015 resulted in artificially high figures there for the LibDems at Tory expense. If the 2010 result is treated as the Tory base , this seat is very winnable for them.
The Tories aren't gaining Cambridge whilst they have 70% of the Brexit vote, it is simple mathematics.
Forgive the bad language - but literally 'con' means 'cunt' in French. 'Connard' means something very much akin to 'cunt' (for a man - 'connasse' for a woman). The '...ard' / '...asse' ending is a kind of diminutive. Calling someone a 'connard' is the same therefore as calling them 'a little cunt'. Interestingly, it is worse in French to add 'espece de' in front of pretty much any noun insult. Being an 'espece de con' is ruder than being simply a 'con'. Ho hum. (They also use 'putain' - literally 'whore' - as a qualifier. So 'putain chaleur' means 'bloody heat'.)
I'm fairly sure putain has additional rudeness due to its similarity with Petain.
That said, French swearing is broadly rubbish - over-wordy and imprecise - and the lads I knew over there would happily and readily curse in Anglo-Saxon.
The quality of swear words tells you alot about a language. The Japanese hardly swear and the words they do have are horrifically tame. It's just not done. The Chinese, on the other hand, are right up there with English as a bastion of fantastic and evolved vulgarianism.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
Con 2015 vote retention (95%!) and significant LD-> Con leakage doesn't bode well for LD taking NE Fife or Edinburgh West
I think Tories will vote tactically to help the Lib Dems in Fife NE where they have little chance and Rennie's success has made it clear who is the leading Unionist. I am not nearly so sure that they will in Edinburgh making it more likely in my view that the SNP will hold on against split opposition.
Isn't Edinburgh West an ultra-savvy, extremely highly educated constituency? Also, don't Tories have better targets nearby?
I may well be corrected by those with local knowledge, but I'd rather assumed that (with the MSP a LD too) the prospects of the LDs making a convincing tactical case were good in Edinburgh West.
There is certainly a case and if I was in that constituency I would be tempted. But the Tories are on the up in Edinburgh and hungry. Fife NE, not so much.
Of course if the SNP vote is down 7% then standing still might be enough.
Con 2015 vote retention (95%!) and significant LD-> Con leakage doesn't bode well for LD taking NE Fife or Edinburgh West
I think Tories will vote tactically to help the Lib Dems in Fife NE where they have little chance and Rennie's success has made it clear who is the leading Unionist. I am not nearly so sure that they will in Edinburgh making it more likely in my view that the SNP will hold on against split opposition.
Survation Scottish poll found almost zero evidence of this - Shy Tory Tactical Voters?
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
I've just realised I've misunderstood what that crosstab hints at. Lumme, that's bad for Labour.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
Labour’s poll ratings at the moment are pretty close to where they were during Cleggmania in the 2010 election and the last week of the 1983 campaign. Some signs of a slight uptick in their vote share.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
Agreed. I voted Tory in every GE, in Cambridge, since my first (1992), then spoiled my ballot last time, because they were all so hopeless, and I'm voting for the LD candidate this time - because he is the best constituency MP. It won't take many like me to turn Cambridge LD again, and the candidate has continued to work the constituency very hard.
I'm always surprised by the latter point you make. The energy required to do that while holding down a full time job (especially if, like most professional jobs, the purported hours are advisory) shows, if little else, stamina, dedication and single-mindedness.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same
The Tories will be on about 600 seats if they win Cambridge.
Not at all. Labour only narrowly won the seat in 1945 & 1966. In every other post war election the seat was Tory - until 1992. In 2010 the Tories were in second place just 13% behind the LibDems. The latter are polling much lower now and the Tories a lot higher. Tactical voting in 2015 resulted in artificially high figures there for the LibDems at Tory expense. If the 2010 result is treated as the Tory base , this seat is very winnable for them.
The Tories aren't gaining Cambridge whilst they have 70% of the Brexit vote, it is simple mathematics.
You are probably making the mistake of assuming that Brexit is far more salient as an issue than is actually the case.
Males sense. They've already been squeezed to their bare core in many of those seats and have nothing left to lose, the crush is now in seats they hold where they have been in their pomp. Would indicate a movement on a non UNS basis, as UNS cannot apply differentially like this and they end up on a Lib-Dem style low 20s with not much to show for it in seats. ELE and getting worse,
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
I don’t expect the LibDems to do very well. Labour will surely seek to remind voters that they were ‘the Tories’ little helpers’ for five years.. Some of the apparently promising LibDem targets also flatter to deceive. To take Cambridge as an example – the Labour MP elected in 2015 can now expect an incumbency bonus whilst the LibDems there have lost theirs – so Labour effectively enjoys a double incumbency boost there. He is also an ardent Remainer in so far as that may prove salient. The other point is that until 1992 Cambridge was normally a Tory seat – and the LibDems have only progressed at all there via Tory tactical votes and Labour voters alienated by Iraq in 2005. The latter are very unlikely to switch back to the LibDems, and if the Tories really do poll circa 45% nationally, why would they continue to vote tactically rather than going home to their own party? Labour has twice – in 1992 & 2015 – won the seat from third place.Why should the Tories not contemplate doing the same
The Tories will be on about 600 seats if they win Cambridge.
Not at all. Labour only narrowly won the seat in 1945 & 1966. In every other post war election the seat was Tory - until 1992. In 2010 the Tories were in second place just 13% behind the LibDems. The latter are polling much lower now and the Tories a lot higher. Tactical voting in 2015 resulted in artificially high figures there for the LibDems at Tory expense. If the 2010 result is treated as the Tory base , this seat is very winnable for them.
The Tories aren't gaining Cambridge whilst they have 70% of the Brexit vote, it is simple mathematics.
You are probably making the mistake of assuming that Brexit is far more salient as an issue than is actually the case.
Males sense. They've already been squeezed to their bare core in many of those seats and have nothing left to lose, the crush is now in seats they hold where they have been in their pomp. Would indicate a movement on a non UNS basis, as UNS cannot apply differentially like this and they end up on a Lib-Dem style low 20s with not much to show for it in seats. ELE and getting worse,
It's the opposite of 1983 when Labour's vote dropped most heavily in the seats where they were weakest, one reason why they managed to hold 209 seats with 27.6%.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
Thanks Alastair. There is still a while to go but this is starting to look awfully like Scotland in 2015.
Like others I am having some problem reconciling a Tory lead of 17% in Labour seats with Labour being on 28%. Add in a catastrophic collapse in their share of the vote in Scotland (only costing 1 seat) and they really should be doing not well but better than this.
Forgive the bad language - but literally 'con' means 'cunt' in French. 'Connard' means something very much akin to 'cunt' (for a man - 'connasse' for a woman). The '...ard' / '...asse' ending is a kind of diminutive. Calling someone a 'connard' is the same therefore as calling them 'a little cunt'. Interestingly, it is worse in French to add 'espece de' in front of pretty much any noun insult. Being an 'espece de con' is ruder than being simply a 'con'. Ho hum. (They also use 'putain' - literally 'whore' - as a qualifier. So 'putain chaleur' means 'bloody heat'.)
I'm fairly sure putain has additional rudeness due to its similarity with Petain.
That said, French swearing is broadly rubbish - over-wordy and imprecise - and the lads I knew over there would happily and readily curse in Anglo-Saxon.
Re 'con': there is an entire scene in Henry V which becomes much funnier if you know what con means in French.
Males sense. They've already been squeezed to their bare core in many of those seats and have nothing left to lose, the crush is now in seats they hold where they have been in their pomp. Would indicate a movement on a non UNS basis, as UNS cannot apply differentially like this and they end up on a Lib-Dem style low 20s with not much to show for it in seats. ELE and getting worse,
It's the opposite of 1983 when Labour's vote dropped most heavily in the seats where they were weakest, one reason why they managed to hold 209 seats with 27.6%.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
I've just realised I've misunderstood what that crosstab hints at. Lumme, that's bad for Labour.
I find it hard to imagine a world where Slough (no 76) returns a Tory MP....
Males sense. They've already been squeezed to their bare core in many of those seats and have nothing left to lose, the crush is now in seats they hold where they have been in their pomp. Would indicate a movement on a non UNS basis, as UNS cannot apply differentially like this and they end up on a Lib-Dem style low 20s with not much to show for it in seats. ELE and getting worse,
It's the opposite of 1983 when Labour's vote dropped most heavily in the seats where they were weakest, one reason why they managed to hold 209 seats with 27.6%.
I'm coming to the conclusion at this stage that 150 seats looks very optimistic. Something needs to change or this juggernaut is going to engulf them like Blair did in 97, on steroids.
It may be me being thick but why do you say that? What was the marginal split at the last GE?
Back of a fag packet that's a 12.4% swing (by the mathematically incorrect method of averaging the percentages in those seats I get Lab 42.3% and Con 34.5%)
My list of results only goes down to 10% swing required for Lab seats with tories 2nd. Swansea West FWIW needs 10.01% - 83rd on the list. So ~100 seats would go IF that happened on the night and it was UNS
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
Thanks Alastair. There is still a while to go but this is starting to look awfully like Scotland in 2015.
Like others I am having some problem reconciling a Tory lead of 17% in Labour seats with Labour being on 28%. Add in a catastrophic collapse in their share of the vote in Scotland (only costing 1 seat) and they really should be doing not well but better than this.
Well if the Tories aren't putting on votes in South Holland and the Deepings it will help them out in Mansfield for the same share.
It is not logically inconsistent for some voters to think Brexit was wrong in principle last June but to now want the PM to have the strongest possible mandate to secure the best deal she can.
Given that, I'm not sure how useful this tracker really is going forward. We have to do quite a bit of gymnastics to seperate out how people felt then, how they feel now and what it means for their vote now. If YG asked about Brexit vote first and then how they feel now and then about GE VI that would be interesting as a tracker
Apologies if this point has already been made below.
Con 2015 vote retention (95%!) and significant LD-> Con leakage doesn't bode well for LD taking NE Fife or Edinburgh West
I think Tories will vote tactically to help the Lib Dems in Fife NE where they have little chance and Rennie's success has made it clear who is the leading Unionist. I am not nearly so sure that they will in Edinburgh making it more likely in my view that the SNP will hold on against split opposition.
Survation Scottish poll found almost zero evidence of this - Shy Tory Tactical Voters?
Edit - based on a sub-subsample count of 1 - is this a PB record?
" Just on a third, 32%, of Conservative voters at the last general election are in the Brexit was wrong camp. That seems a very high proportion given the huge emphasis being put on this by Mrs May and other polling that has the voting intention figures moving sharply to the Tories."
I don't understand this. Mrs May shows no signs of thinking that it matters whether in hindsight voters think brexit was good or bad (nor of what her own view is); she thinks that the country has voted for it, and it must be delivered.
"It did have Brexit “right” 4% ahead"
Nor this; it did on April 7, but the gap on April 13 - the latest published poll before the GE announcement on April 18 - was 2%. What is the reason for not taking April 13 as the comparator?
And - purely out of interest - if Yougov are polling this weekly but only publishing one poll per month, how do they choose which poll they publish? The respective dates of the month look pretty random to me.
Did anyone keep Alastair's list of Labour seats and their majorities? From recollection this is looking like something up to 100 losses. Still hard to believe.
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
Thanks Alastair. There is still a while to go but this is starting to look awfully like Scotland in 2015.
Like others I am having some problem reconciling a Tory lead of 17% in Labour seats with Labour being on 28%. Add in a catastrophic collapse in their share of the vote in Scotland (only costing 1 seat) and they really should be doing not well but better than this.
Well if the Tories aren't putting on votes in South Holland and the Deepings it will help them out in Mansfield for the same share.
Yes, but if Labour are doing really badly in Mansfield can they really be on 28%? That is the question.
Typos in 2nd para fixed. Problem with going with an earlier draft.
Burnley looks fascinating. I have it as a 3 way mega marginal.
Indeed like several ex LD seats that were won by LAB at GE2015. I've no special information about it.
Cambridge certainly comes to mind in that it had normally been a Tory seat until 1992.
Lib Dem GAIN
The Tories will be on about 600 seats if they win Cambridge.
Not at all. Labour only narrowly won the seat in 1945 & 1966. In every other post war election the seat was Tory - until 1992. In 2010 the Tories were in second place just 13% behind the LibDems. The latter are polling much lower now and the Tories a lot higher. Tactical voting in 2015 resulted in artificially high figures there for the LibDems at Tory expense. If the 2010 result is treated as the Tory base , this seat is very winnable for them.
The Tories aren't gaining Cambridge whilst they have 70% of the Brexit vote, it is simple mathematics.
You are probably making the mistake of assuming that Brexit is far more salient as an issue than is actually the case.
I'm really, really not.
I really think you are - and have been saying this for months. Brexit is an important issue - but not a salient one. Most people have moved on - and it is far too technical for the typical voter . Corbyn is already largely ignoring it and I suspect his focus on other issues will gain some traction.
I bought two days ago at 378. The polling data is consistent amongst all sources, and ties up with anecdotal evidence and with simple commonsense, seeing what Labour are offering the electorate.
Comments
Lab 29%
Lib Dem 31%
UKIP 7%
2013 result
Lab 8717
LDem 5274
Con 2189
UKIP 1956
BNP 585
Ind 217
A reasonable guide to the 2015 result
https://twitter.com/NaomiMc/status/856489292549562368
Online polls are cheap and easy as well as being quick.
(They also use 'putain' - literally 'whore' - as a qualifier. So 'putain chaleur' means 'bloody heat'.)
I think it is a Lib Dem gain, but 25-1 looks huge to me for the Tories.
Edit: Con too far behind, although @Pulpstar's 25-1 is not bad as a longshot.
"Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère."
However, Cornwall (and some other places) are a bit of a law unto themselves. I'd certainly not put it past the LDs to gain some Leave seats back, especially where the ex-MP is going again. By-elections in Cornwall since 2015 have also been outstanding for them - we'll know more next week, but there do seem to be more than a few little local difficulties for the Tories there.
There's also a powerful argument to be made to Tory voters that the best way to hit Labour is to vote LD in this constituency - better Orange than give succour to Corbyn.
It's just statistical noise. There's been no real change. You could equally pick the fortnight ago figure. In the months covered by the graphic, Right has varied from 44-46, and Wrong from 42-44.
This is SNP '15 stuff.
Remember 2015?
Cameron (you know - pudgy faced chap, used to be PM) wanting a majority to ensure strong and stable Government as opposed to the five preceding years?
Osborne at the peak of his powers, the master of all he surveyed?
Miliband handing over the reins to Burnham, Cooper, or some other slightly bland New Labour type?
Lib Dems on a Travolta/Micawber strategy of staying alive and hoping something turns up (goodness knows what)?
Obama preparing handover notes for Clinton (or possibly Rubio if there was a shock result)?
That said, French swearing is broadly rubbish - over-wordy and imprecise - and the lads I knew over there would happily and readily curse in Anglo-Saxon.
@Conservatives lead 48% vs 31% in Lab held seats
How are they on 28% with that about ?
I may well be corrected by those with local knowledge, but I'd rather assumed that (with the MSP a LD too) the prospects of the LDs making a convincing tactical case were good in Edinburgh West.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-endorses-jeremy-corbyn-for-prime-minister-a3522366.html?amp
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1Tm54TU02a3E3R0U/view
Every Tory target up to 87 (Lancashire West) looks more likely than not to go if that's correct, and of course the Conservatives will presumably overachieve in some seats beyond that level.
Of course if the SNP vote is down 7% then standing still might be enough.
https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/warning-signs-for-labour-50b6cd1501d8
Like others I am having some problem reconciling a Tory lead of 17% in Labour seats with Labour being on 28%. Add in a catastrophic collapse in their share of the vote in Scotland (only costing 1 seat) and they really should be doing not well but better than this.
My list of results only goes down to 10% swing required for Lab seats with tories 2nd. Swansea West FWIW needs 10.01% - 83rd on the list. So ~100 seats would go IF that happened on the night and it was UNS
OMG as the kids say...
Con 378-384
Lab 166-172
LD 26-29
SNP 48-51
SPIN same except:
LD 27-30
SNP 47-50
Given that, I'm not sure how useful this tracker really is going forward. We have to do quite a bit of gymnastics to seperate out how people felt then, how they feel now and what it means for their vote now. If YG asked about Brexit vote first and then how they feel now and then about GE VI that would be interesting as a tracker
Apologies if this point has already been made below.
And in the meantime the PM keeps out of the limelight working on the manifesto and having photos taken with her candidates.
Non-White voters: Lab 54 Con 30 LD 6 Grn 4 UKIP 3
It is worth bearing in mind that "10/10 to turnout" is an abysmal 37%.
I don't understand this. Mrs May shows no signs of thinking that it matters whether in hindsight voters think brexit was good or bad (nor of what her own view is); she thinks that the country has voted for it, and it must be delivered.
"It did have Brexit “right” 4% ahead"
Nor this; it did on April 7, but the gap on April 13 - the latest published poll before the GE announcement on April 18 - was 2%. What is the reason for not taking April 13 as the comparator?
And - purely out of interest - if Yougov are polling this weekly but only publishing one poll per month, how do they choose which poll they publish? The respective dates of the month look pretty random to me.