Taking the midpoint of those estimates (Con 387, Lab 163, SNP 48, Lib Dem 27, Others 25) which would give a Conservative majority of 124, the estimated vote shares (according to UK-Elect) would be Con 44%, Lab 27%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dem 7%, SNP 4%, Green 3%, Others 4% (Con lead of 17%, 5% swing from Lab to Con)
Lib Dem 27 on 7% compared to 8 on 8%, doesn't sound right. Also UKIP on 11% sounds wrong.
They're not on 7%, they are on 11% but they are still 10 seats too high, most of which should be added to the Tory column.
I do sometimes think some on here think the LDs themselves have posted up the seat numbers.
Er, no.
I said last week 15% and 20 seats might be Tim Farron's aim this time and if so then a Sell at 26 with Sporting looks inviting. The problem is the election is still 6 weeks away and there's plenty of time for things to happen.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
If anything the EU indulged Cameron's 'renegotiation' charade far too much. Any other leader would have been told that nothing significant could be done without a treaty change and that that would need to wait. It would have required patient and persistent diplomatic engagement over a period of years, not rushed in a few months to get his referendum out of the way.
Taking the midpoint of those estimates (Con 387, Lab 163, SNP 48, Lib Dem 27, Others 25) which would give a Conservative majority of 124, the estimated vote shares (according to UK-Elect) would be Con 44%, Lab 27%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dem 7%, SNP 4%, Green 3%, Others 4% (Con lead of 17%, 5% swing from Lab to Con)
Lib Dem 27 on 7% compared to 8 on 8%, doesn't sound right. Also UKIP on 11% sounds wrong.
Kippers cant get near 11% IMO
If they stand in 100 and score 11% they have dozens of MP's! Equivalent share 6% is about the mark, they will retain some of the stubborn anti establishment vote.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
It might be going too far to say its structure was no longer fit for purpose but nobody should underestimate the part played by the EU itself in the Brexit fiasco. For a start, what kind of an authority sets up a border 3,000 miles long and makes no sensible arrangement for policing it?
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
Quite. When history is written on BREXIT I suspect Merkel will be joining Cameron in the "could have done things smarter" column. And now it looks like the EU wants to cherry pick.....
I'm returning to the subject of the Lib Dems when I get time to put together another post, but in summary I fundamentally see them as a sell at 20, never mind 26. The only reason for not selling more now is that the sandalistas are likely to get excited in response to good local election results.... [snip]
The really odd thing is that the bookies don't seem to be consistent in their LibDem figures. What are the seats that would make up a LibDem total of (say) 15, let alone 26? Well, surely Twickenham, for example, would be one their easiest targets, yet you can get 1.73 on them there. A simple strategy of betting on Vince and also on LD total less than 25.5 at 1.83 looks like a case where you couldn't lose both bets, and you'd very probably win both. And there are longer-odds seats where the same principle, albeit with a bit less certainty, applies
I came up with the following seat order applying a split remain/leave UNS for the first 20 seats in order (No corrections for Scotland, I have backed Fife and Edi West but not Dunbartonshire off the back of Holyrood results.
Sheffield Hallam Leeds North West Westmorland & Lonsdale Cambridge Ceredigion Orkney & Shetland <- Should be top of the pile Bermondsey & Old Southwark Dunbartonshire East Norfolk North Edinburgh West <- Holyrood indicates a goody Cardiff Central Burnley <- 3 way possibly Southport Bristol West <- Green potential challenge Carshalton & Wallington Fife North East <- Holyrood indicates a goody Twickenham Hornsey & Wood Green Lewes</p>
I'm tempted to back labour to retain cardiff central. skybet have them at 15/8.
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
I cannot see the LDs winning Bermondsey. Bermondsey is not a Liberal seat.
Sorry but this sort of analysis is poor, you'd have been straight to the poorhouse in 2015 if you'd have gone off the back of "I can't see the Lib Dems losing Yeovil, Bath or Thornbury", or "I can't see Labour losing Coatsbridge".
"I can't see x, y or z" happening is such a bad way to look at things.
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
I've backed the 10-19 and 20-29 bands. overall I get an even money return if the lower figure and 7/8 return from the upper band. I think i can cover sub-10 at about 14's if need be but I'm happy with my position currently.
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
It's a risky market because there's maybe an 80% chance that things will stay roughly where they are and they'll be swept away in the Tory landslide, but there's also a 20% chance something more dramatic could happen if Labour collapse completely and there are a few wobbles in the Tory campaign.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
If anything the EU indulged Cameron's 'renegotiation' charade far too much. Any other leader would have been told that nothing significant could be done without a treaty change and that that would need to wait. It would have required patient and persistent diplomatic engagement over a period of years, not rushed in a few months to get his referendum out of the way.
Cameron set out his agenda for the reform of the EU at Bloomberg in January 2013. It was a very sensible agenda and got absolutely nowhere in 3 years. But you are never going to admit that the EU is less than perfect so this is pointless.
data collected Sun-Mon (23-24 Apr): two polls: 61%-39%; -"- Sun-Tue (23-25 Apr): 60%-40%; -"- Mon-Wed (24-26 Apr): 59%-41%.
If we assume things stayed flat on Sun (polling day) and Mon (does political buyer's remorse happen so fast?), and that within each poll the daily amount of data collected didn't vary (very iffy assumptions, I know), then Macron's score fell from 61% to 58% between Mon and Tue.
Ifop's data shows Macron's score increasing slightly.
Meanwhile, Macron's team are complaining about Russian infowar. They are right: of course he's a target. But whingeing never won any votes, and anyone who has studied psychological warfare properly knows that denouncing the enemy's campaign directed at your own population usually achieves less than nothing, being welcomed by the enemy. (Think "fifth column".)
Taking the midpoint of those estimates (Con 387, Lab 163, SNP 48, Lib Dem 27, Others 25) which would give a Conservative majority of 124, the estimated vote shares (according to UK-Elect) would be Con 44%, Lab 27%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dem 7%, SNP 4%, Green 3%, Others 4% (Con lead of 17%, 5% swing from Lab to Con)
Lib Dem 27 on 7% compared to 8 on 8%, doesn't sound right. Also UKIP on 11% sounds wrong.
Kippers cant get near 11% IMO
Correct. One notable feature of this GE is going to be the collapse of UKIP and the return of the significant majority of their voters to the Tories. This is, of course, a 'job done / demob' thing rather than a failure thing. UKIP has no reason to exist any more. (Oh...it also has a Scouser leading it now so that's 5% off their polling right away).
Key points, running contrary to some comment on here:
The Remain vote is less likely to drive voting intention than the Leave one, and, consequently,
The Lib Dems would be reduced to 6 MPs on current ICM polling.
The even keyer point is that electoral politics is entirely zero-sum. If the Conservatives gain votes from any party they improve their position against all parties. So the Lib Dems don't have to do anything wrong, maybe even a bit ahead, but they will lose against Conservatives picking up votes from Labour and particularly UKIP.
That's not entirely true in FPTP: it does depend on where you pick up votes and from whom. The LDs' performances in 1997 and 2010 give good examples of that. Vote gains and losses are zero-sum within a constituency, and seats are zero-sum across the country, but that doesn't mean that votes are zero-sum across the country.
@Richard_Nabavi I think Cambridge deserves it's place up there. In an analysis of results Julian Huppert retained way more of his vote than the average Lib Dem (Save a few Scots). He has a decent personal vote, and I think the Tory vote share could well go down in that constituency as he gets some tacticals.
I went on a meandering drive through Cambridge yesterday, and was surprised by the number of Labour boards out. It *feels* like far more than there were two years ago. A couple of LD ones, and one of those was for (I think) the local elections candidate, not Huppert.
Mr. Isam, speculate it's a Zoroastrian. If it's a Muslim, people will lambast you for getting the religion wrong. If it's some sort of more local disturbance, as it were, they can lambast you for suspecting it's down to someone/something from the Middle East.
I cannot see the LDs winning Bermondsey. Bermondsey is not a Liberal seat.
Sorry but this sort of analysis is poor, you'd have been straight to the poorhouse in 2015 if you'd have gone off the back of "I can't see the Lib Dems losing Yeovil, Bath or Thornbury", or "I can't see Labour losing Coatsbridge".
"I can't see x, y or z" happening is such a bad way to look at things.
Bermondsey is the Lib Dem target #2 in England.
Just because something is high up a parties target list doesn't mean they will get it.
Derby North is Labour target #1 in England. You can still get 6/1 on Labour on Betfair Sportsbook for it.
I thought that nothing really changes during an election campaign ? If it is a reversal of the 2001 Labour victory it is a forgone conclusion .Even the excitement in the media of the DPM brawling with a member of the public changed nothing.However it was more exciting than listening to the current Tory mantras coalition of chaos ,which everyone knows is crap as there is no chance of it occurring If that is Crosby's best effort he is screwing the Tory party as a an unpaid official could have done better.
Labour strategists aren’t concerned about these attacks: they believe that Corbyn’s long record of making what they regard as the right judgments on foreign policy issues, including opposing the Iraq war as a Labour backbencher, will serve him well; and the perception of him as weak on national security is already “priced in”, so no new revelations will hurt him.
They also believe that the public are turned off by May’s gung-ho approach to Britain’s defence, with Fallon even suggesting that she would be willing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. And they hope Corbyn will come across as reasonable, and thereby strike a chord with voters. Labour also intends to spend as much time as possible on the campaign trail talking about policy.
Fancy Tony Blair back? Thought not. After Iraq (and possibly before) there is not much appetite for blowing up sand dunes. Corbyn is vulnerable on defending this country but not so much on invading Syria.
He is advocating a political settlement in Syria though. So, in other words, trying to compromise with the most extreme of terrorists.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
data collected Sun-Mon (23-24 Apr): two polls: 61%-39%; -"- Sun-Tue (23-25 Apr): 60%-40%; -"- Mon-Wed (24-26 Apr): 59%-41%.
If we assume things stayed flat on Sun (polling day) and Mon (does political buyer's remorse happen so fast?), and that within each poll the daily amount of data collected didn't vary (very iffy assumptions, I know), then Macron's score fell from 61% to 58% between Mon and Tue.
Ifop's data shows Macron's score increasing slightly.
Meanwhile, Macron's team are complaining about Russian infowar. They are right: of course he's a target. But whingeing never won any votes, and anyone who has studied psychological warfare properly knows that denouncing the enemy's campaign directed at your own population usually achieves less than nothing, being welcomed by the enemy. (Think "fifth column".)
Today's Ifop will be interesting if it's for 25-27 Apr. Before R1 they were showing a lot higher scores than Opinionway for Le Pen in the hypothetical Macron-Le Pen R2.
Taking the midpoint of those estimates (Con 387, Lab 163, SNP 48, Lib Dem 27, Others 25) which would give a Conservative majority of 124, the estimated vote shares (according to UK-Elect) would be Con 44%, Lab 27%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dem 7%, SNP 4%, Green 3%, Others 4% (Con lead of 17%, 5% swing from Lab to Con)
Lib Dem 27 on 7% compared to 8 on 8%, doesn't sound right. Also UKIP on 11% sounds wrong.
Kippers cant get near 11% IMO
Correct. One notable feature of this GE is going to be the collapse of UKIP and the return of the significant majority of their voters to the Tories. This is, of course, a 'job done / demob' thing rather than a failure thing. UKIP has no reason to exist any more. (Oh...it also has a Scouser leading it now so that's 5% off their polling right away).
The actual vote share will also collapse MASSIVELY by them not standing. If they only stand in 100 seats as was mooted earlier - then EVEN IF those seats are the ones which they did best in last time around, and they keep the same vote share in those seats - then they fall from 3.8Mn Votes and 12.6% to just under 1Mn Votes and 3.25%
Taking the midpoint of those estimates (Con 387, Lab 163, SNP 48, Lib Dem 27, Others 25) which would give a Conservative majority of 124, the estimated vote shares (according to UK-Elect) would be Con 44%, Lab 27%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dem 7%, SNP 4%, Green 3%, Others 4% (Con lead of 17%, 5% swing from Lab to Con)
Lib Dem 27 on 7% compared to 8 on 8%, doesn't sound right. Also UKIP on 11% sounds wrong.
Kippers cant get near 11% IMO
Correct. One notable feature of this GE is going to be the collapse of UKIP and the return of the significant majority of their voters to the Tories. This is, of course, a 'job done / demob' thing rather than a failure thing. UKIP has no reason to exist any more. (Oh...it also has a Scouser leading it now so that's 5% off their polling right away).
The actual vote share will also collapse MASSIVELY by them not standing. If they only stand in 100 seats as was mooted earlier - then EVEN IF those seats are the ones which they did best in last time around, and they keep the same vote share in those seats - then they fall from 3.8Mn Votes and 12.6% to just under 1Mn Votes and 3.25%
I cannot see the LDs winning Bermondsey. Bermondsey is not a Liberal seat.
Sorry but this sort of analysis is poor, you'd have been straight to the poorhouse in 2015 if you'd have gone off the back of "I can't see the Lib Dems losing Yeovil, Bath or Thornbury", or "I can't see Labour losing Coatsbridge".
"I can't see x, y or z" happening is such a bad way to look at things.
Bermondsey is the Lib Dem target #2 in England.
Just because something is high up a parties target list doesn't mean they will get it.
Derby North is Labour target #1 in England. You can still get 6/1 on Labour on Betfair Sportsbook for it.
I'm on the Tories there at 4-9. One of my favourite bets.
I'm returning to the subject of the Lib Dems when I get time to put together another post, but in summary I fundamentally see them as a sell at 20, never mind 26. The only reason for not selling more now is that the sandalistas are likely to get excited in response to good local election results.... [snip]
The really odd thing is that the bookies don't seem to be consistent in their LibDem figures. What are the seats that would make up a LibDem total of (say) 15, let alone 26? Well, surely Twickenham, for example, would be one their easiest targets, yet you can get 1.73 on them there. A simple strategy of betting on Vince and also on LD total less than 25.5 at 1.83 looks like a case where you couldn't lose both bets, and you'd very probably win both. And there are longer-odds seats where the same principle, albeit with a bit less certainty, applies
I came up with the following seat order applying a split remain/leave UNS for the first 20 seats in order (No corrections for Scotland, I have backed Fife and Edi West but not Dunbartonshire off the back of Holyrood results.
Sheffield Hallam Leeds North West Westmorland & Lonsdale Cambridge Ceredigion Orkney & Shetland <- Should be top of the pile Bermondsey & Old Southwark Dunbartonshire East Norfolk North Edinburgh West <- Holyrood indicates a goody Cardiff Central Burnley <- 3 way possibly Southport Bristol West <- Green potential challenge Carshalton & Wallington Fife North East <- Holyrood indicates a goody Twickenham Hornsey & Wood Green Lewes</p>
I cannot see the LDs winning Bermondsey. Bermondsey is not a Liberal seat. It became one on the back of an infamous by-election and was kept on because of Simon Hughes.
However, he kept losing his majority bit by bit until it went. Even though Hughes is back, remember it was him who lost it. I cannot believe the voters will get him back.
In any case, the LD vote share is not very different from 2015.
Kingston and Surbiton ? There will be a swing of, at least, two votes.
@Richard_Nabavi I think Cambridge deserves it's place up there. In an analysis of results Julian Huppert retained way more of his vote than the average Lib Dem (Save a few Scots). He has a decent personal vote, and I think the Tory vote share could well go down in that constituency as he gets some tacticals.
Huppert & Zeichner are almost indistinguishable.
I think the reverse will happen and the Tory vote will go up a little. They are only the Brexit supporting party, and the East of the city supported Brexit.
I have come round to rcs’s view, a little.
I think that the Labour wards, the Brexit East of the city will not turn out as enthusiastically to vote for Zeichner as they did in 2015.
And that alone will be enough to tip the seat the LibDems way.
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
I'd broadly agree with that, but punters should remember that the risks aren't well balanced with the Lib Dems. There are unlikely but possible scenarios where they get a big fat zero, but it's mathematically impossible to get less than that... whereas there are unlikely but possible scenarios where the narrative becomes beating the Labour vote share, at which point they could get a lot of seats and you could get badly burned if you're on the wrong side of it. So there's a long tail of unlikely results on the right of the graph, but a short one on the left.
For that reason, I would prefer with the Lib Dems simply to bet on under/over markets with the conventional bookies. I've backed sub-28.5 with Betfair, with some on sub-18.5. I might not win as much if I'm right but, equally, I know my maximum exposure with confidence.
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
Fair comment David -
I wonder if we will ever be told the full story of the whys and wherefores as to how David Cameron came to be completely shafted in his attempts to re-negotiate the UK's terms with the EU Big Wigs early last year, following which the poor bloke had to suffer the indignity of having to return to these shores pretending that he had secured some form of excellent deal. Of course we weren't fooled and last June his Premiership lay in tatters when the Brits wrought their revenge, as in retrospect they were bound to do. Somehow I felt his heart was never in it.
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Right, is there any feasible way for Labour to ditch Corbyn and coronate Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper as leader 4 weeks before polling day?
The NEC, in theory, could do anything, I guess. There will be an almighty rumpus but it can be done. The Aussies would have done it by now.
No, there's a mechanism for dumping the leader against his will. It's cumbersome and requires a direct challenge: there is no provision to depose via a vote of no confidence. Labour cannot remove Corbyn now before the GE.
In any case, even if they could, they'd be mad to do so. Firstly, the act of switching leaders at this stage would be chaotic and split the party from top to bottom; secondly, it would interfere massively with election preparations: literature, timetables, campaign events, the manifesto and so on; thirdly, it'd probably mean a shadow cabinet reshuffle because Corbyn being ousted would probably mean McDonnell, Abbott and others going too - and these new shadow ministers would have to be up to media interview standard within days; fourthly, and relatedly, it'd probably mean a reshuffle of Labour's backroom staff, so the planning, organisation and media-facing side would be thrown into even more chaos; and finally - and perhaps most importantly - the left would no longer own the election result come June 8.
Earlier this week, the Royal Mail delivered a remarkable piece of election literature to thousands of households across Scotland. It made no mention of any candidate. Nor did it refer to any policies or make any promises of any kind. Most remarkably of all, it did not even mention whether it was concerned with next month’s local elections or the general election to be held on June 8th. But then it didn’t need to.
Because it’s message was bluntly clear: “WE NEED TO SEND NICOLA STURGEON AND THE SNP A MESSAGE THEY CAN’T IGNORE. SO LET’S ALL TELL THE SNP: SCOTLAND DOESN’T WANT ANOTHER INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM.” Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it boasted, “are now too weak to stand up effectively to the SNP” and “Only Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives can send a strong message to the SNP”.
And there you have it, the alpha and omega of the Tory campaign this year. A single, all-purpose, message that can – and will – be deployed in every and any circumstance. The local elections? A chance to send a message to the SNP that Scotland doesn’t want a second referendum. The general election? The same as the local elections, but with added vim and gusto. When it comes to message discipline these days, even Theresa May must give way to Ms Davidson and her colleagues in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.
I'm returning to the subject of the Lib Dems when I get time to put together another post, but in summary I fundamentally see them as a sell at 20, never mind 26. The only reason for not selling more now is that the sandalistas are likely to get excited in response to good local election results.... [snip]
The really odd thing is that the bookies don't seem to be consistent in their LibDem figures. What are the seats that would make up a LibDem total of (say) 15, let alone 26? Well, surely Twickenham, for example, would be one their easiest targets, yet you can get 1.73 on them there. A simple strategy of betting on Vince and also on LD total less than 25.5 at 1.83 looks like a case where you couldn't lose both bets, and you'd very probably win both. And there are longer-odds seats where the same principle, albeit with a bit less certainty, applies
I came up with the following seat order applying a split remain/leave UNS for the first 20 seats in order (No corrections for Scotland, I have backed Fife and Edi West but not Dunbartonshire off the back of Holyrood results.
Sheffield Hallam Leeds North West Westmorland & Lonsdale Cambridge Ceredigion Orkney & Shetland <- Should be top of the pile Bermondsey & Old Southwark Dunbartonshire East Norfolk North Edinburgh West <- Holyrood indicates a goody Cardiff Central Burnley <- 3 way possibly Southport Bristol West <- Green potential challenge Carshalton & Wallington Fife North East <- Holyrood indicates a goody Twickenham Hornsey & Wood Green Lewes</p>
I cannot see the LDs winning Bermondsey. Bermondsey is not a Liberal seat. It became one on the back of an infamous by-election and was kept on because of Simon Hughes.
However, he kept losing his majority bit by bit until it went. Even though Hughes is back, remember it was him who lost it. I cannot believe the voters will get him back.
He didn't lose his majority bit by bit, in fact - it went up and down like a whore's drawers over the years. It's quite a volatile seat.
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Very true her main consideration in calling the GE .
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
Fair comment David -
I wonder if we will ever be told the full story of the whys and wherefores as to how David Cameron came to be completely shafted in his attempts to re-negotiate the UK's terms with the EU Big Wigs early last year, following which the poor bloke had to suffer the indignity of having to return to these shores pretending that he had secured some form of excellent deal. Of course we weren't fooled and last June his Premiership lay in tatters when the Brits wrought their revenge, as in retrospect they were bound to do. Somehow I felt his heart was never in it.
He wasn't shafted. He knew, we knew, they knew that the Project is not up for discussion. No treaty changes were ever possible. It was simply a sham that Dave pretended he was trying. He should have taken a much, much more intellectually honest approach - saying basically 'this is where the EU is going whether we like it or not, should we go with that or shoud we leave'? If he had been that honest with himself he would have come the right conclusion - the one that the people came to. Tosser.
He is advocating a political settlement in Syria though. So, in other words, trying to compromise with the most extreme of terrorists.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
To play Devil's advocate, political solutions in the past have involved sitting down with terrorists whether it be the Mau Mau, Zanu PF, the Irgun or the IRA or their various political fronts.
Corbyn and Blair are right - the only solution is a political solution but that will happen only when all sides realise they cannot "win" militarily. At the moment Assad thinks he can so he has no interest in talking unless Moscow tells him to talk.
We don't like him or who he is fighting - I get that but our history has dragged us into this whether we like it or not.
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Mr Stodge, Is the Finborough Arms organizing a GE all-nighter/piss-up this year?
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
Fair comment David -
I wonder if we will ever be told the full story of the whys and wherefores as to how David Cameron came to be completely shafted in his attempts to re-negotiate the UK's terms with the EU Big Wigs early last year, following which the poor bloke had to suffer the indignity of having to return to these shores pretending that he had secured some form of excellent deal. Of course we weren't fooled and last June his Premiership lay in tatters when the Brits wrought their revenge, as in retrospect they were bound to do. Somehow I felt his heart was never in it.
I don't think he was ever as Eurosceptic as he tried to pretend but on the other hand he was no Europhile either. I don't think it mattered to him one way or the other except to the extent that it gave him problems managing his party and that was more of a problem when he got a majority than when he was in Coalition.
Just maybe if he had cared a little more one way or the other he would have pushed the reform agenda harder and might have got somewhere. But who knows? The EU is a recalcitrant beast full to the brim of vested interests.
He is advocating a political settlement in Syria though. So, in other words, trying to compromise with the most extreme of terrorists.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
To play Devil's advocate, political solutions in the past have involved sitting down with terrorists whether it be the Mau Mau, Zanu PF, the Irgun or the IRA or their various political fronts.
Corbyn and Blair are right - the only solution is a political solution but that will happen only when all sides realise they cannot "win" militarily. At the moment Assad thinks he can so he has no interest in talking unless Moscow tells him to talk.
We don't like him or who he is fighting - I get that but our history has dragged us into this whether we like it or not.
I watched the Simon Reeve doc on Colombia last night... the deal between the govt and FARC seems v similar to the UK govt/IRA
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Agree. I won't be touching the spreads on CON just yet.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
Fair comment David -
I wonder if we will ever be told the full story of the whys and wherefores as to how David Cameron came to be completely shafted in his attempts to re-negotiate the UK's terms with the EU Big Wigs early last year, following which the poor bloke had to suffer the indignity of having to return to these shores pretending that he had secured some form of excellent deal. Of course we weren't fooled and last June his Premiership lay in tatters when the Brits wrought their revenge, as in retrospect they were bound to do. Somehow I felt his heart was never in it.
We will probably never know a full account. Anyone with the knowledge required will have been closely involved in the negotiations and hence will have an interest in painting themselves in a positive light. It would probably take a note-taker to spill the beans, but even then it will be a slanted interpretation of events, based on for which party the person was taking notes.
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Mr Stodge, Is the Finborough Arms organizing a GE all-nighter/piss-up this year?
I don't know - you'll have to ask Mr Stonch who doesn't post here any more.
I suspect unless you're a Conservative there won't be much to celebrate on the night of June 8/9.
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
I'd broadly agree with that, but punters should remember that the risks aren't well balanced with the Lib Dems. There are unlikely but possible scenarios where they get a big fat zero, but it's mathematically impossible to get less than that... whereas there are unlikely but possible scenarios where the narrative becomes beating the Labour vote share, at which point they could get a lot of seats and you could get badly burned if you're on the wrong side of it. So there's a long tail of unlikely results on the right of the graph, but a short one on the left.
For that reason, I would prefer with the Lib Dems simply to bet on under/over markets with the conventional bookies. I've backed sub-28.5 with Betfair, with some on sub-18.5. I might not win as much if I'm right but, equally, I know my maximum exposure with confidence.
I agree.
Unders/Overs are the preferable way to bet against the LD's. Dependening on odds, of course.
One (outlier?) poll with the LD's on 20% would - at least on my reading of the current market sentiment - see their spread price rocket.
Just something to be aware of if you're tempted to sell the yellows at their current price.
Just maybe if he had cared a little more one way or the other he would have pushed the reform agenda harder and might have got somewhere.
The people who cared on the anti- side have won the chance to have their world-view tested against reality. If it's found wanting then there will only be one untried option left for the country: full-blooded pan-Europeanism, for the first time in 30 years.
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
The latest you Gov has Tories on 45%,LD,s on 10%.On UNS that would be only 7 seats to LD,s.Yes things can change but delivering above 20 seats seems a very tall order.I suspect the LD performance in Locals to be somewhat blunted by the strong Tory opinion poll ratings and the resulting press coverage being focused on Labour losses and Tory gains.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
It might be going too far to say its structure was no longer fit for purpose but nobody should underestimate the part played by the EU itself in the Brexit fiasco. For a start, what kind of an authority sets up a border 3,000 miles long and makes no sensible arrangement for policing it?
Madness.
Many Remainers (often reluctant Remainers) have made the same point, Peter.. Jossias Jessop, yourself, Pulpstar, and David Herdson. To name but a few. Hell, even Alastair Meeks had strong criticisms to make.
But the EU doesn't see itself as having played *any* role in Brexit. It thinks it's down to our Eurosceptic press, and the fringe loons of the Conservative Party. It hasn't been explained or listened to properly. That's why Brexit is happening: nothing more; nothing less.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
Labour strategists aren’t concerned about these attacks: they believe that Corbyn’s long record of making what they regard as the right judgments on foreign policy issues, including opposing the Iraq war as a Labour backbencher, will serve him well; and the perception of him as weak on national security is already “priced in”, so no new revelations will hurt him.
They also believe that the public are turned off by May’s gung-ho approach to Britain’s defence, with Fallon even suggesting that she would be willing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. And they hope Corbyn will come across as reasonable, and thereby strike a chord with voters. Labour also intends to spend as much time as possible on the campaign trail talking about policy.
Fancy Tony Blair back? Thought not. After Iraq (and possibly before) there is not much appetite for blowing up sand dunes. Corbyn is vulnerable on defending this country but not so much on invading Syria.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
A good analysis I think. But anecdotally it seems like Corbyn is still getting credit from people for a perceived reasonable stance.
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Very true her main consideration in calling the GE .
There were many reasons for calling an election, not least her small majority and the coalition of remainers across the commons and the HOL, the fact that her opponents said that she had no mandate particularly over increases in tax, and the fact that it is unlikely that she would have a better opportunity to decimate the labour party. That it may or may not help when some of her mp's may or may not be charged and then may or may not be convicted of a election offence at some time in the future for an alleged offence also committed by labour and the lib dems would be a bonus
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Mr Stodge, Is the Finborough Arms organizing a GE all-nighter/piss-up this year?
I don't know - you'll have to ask Mr Stonch who doesn't post here any more.
I suspect unless you're a Conservative there won't be much to celebrate on the night of June 8/9.
Stonch may not post here any more, but I feel sure that as a long term PBer he continues to keep an interested watch on who is saying what, especially as he's a keen punter with a very good brain. I must pop into the Finborough Arms sometime soon and renew acquaintances with him. It's only about 3 miles from my home and on a direct bus route for getting home safely after sampling his excellent beverages!
I have an open buy of Con at 378, which for the moment at least I'm keeping open. I think the price might have a little further to go.
At today's prices, the most attractive bet IMO is a sell of of the LibDems at 26. Most of their targets are Tory held, and there's been a net swing away from the LibDems towards the Tories since GE2015. What's more, in several of the seats in which the LibDems were close behind the Tories, there was a sizeable UKIP vote; thus, seats like Eastbourne or Lewes aren't as easy for the LibDems as you'd think by looking at the small majorities.
Of course, sentiment could turn, and if the LibDems do start eating heavily into the Labour vote share that Sell could turn nasty. But, at the moment, it looks sound enough.
As others have said, spread betting is not for the faint-hearted and losses can mount up very quickly. DYOR.
I'm planning to do a piece this weekend which points out at the last two general elections, the spreads massively overestimated the Yellow Peril.
The consensus view among PBers (apart that is from Mark Senior somewhat predictably) is that the LibDems will win fewer seats, potentially far fewer, than the betting markets are currently predicting, i.e. somewhere between 12 - 20, compared with around 25 - 29 as per the spread-betting firms, bookies, etc.
I'd broadly agree with that, but punters should remember that the risks aren't well balanced with the Lib Dems. There are unlikely but possible scenarios where they get a big fat zero, but it's mathematically impossible to get less than that... whereas there are unlikely but possible scenarios where the narrative becomes beating the Labour vote share, at which point they could get a lot of seats and you could get badly burned if you're on the wrong side of it. So there's a long tail of unlikely results on the right of the graph, but a short one on the left.
For that reason, I would prefer with the Lib Dems simply to bet on under/over markets with the conventional bookies. I've backed sub-28.5 with Betfair, with some on sub-18.5. I might not win as much if I'm right but, equally, I know my maximum exposure with confidence.
I agree.
Unders/Overs are the preferable way to bet against the LD's. Dependening on odds, of course.
One (outlier?) poll with the LD's on 20% would - at least on my reading of the current market sentiment - see their spread price rocket.
Just something to be aware of if you're tempted to sell the yellows at their current price.
I've come to the same conclusion, and have built up a chunk of profit on the left side of the distribution.
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Mr Stodge, Is the Finborough Arms organizing a GE all-nighter/piss-up this year?
I don't know - you'll have to ask Mr Stonch who doesn't post here any more.
I suspect unless you're a Conservative there won't be much to celebrate on the night of June 8/9.
A LD revival into the 20s, should that occur, would surely be worthy of celebration, as it would no doubt also come with reemergence as principal opposition in many places and thus primed for yet more gains in 2022
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Very true her main consideration in calling the GE .
If that was true wouldn't the party have been better prepared? The time table has been known and the deep trouble the party might be in too for a long while. I don't doubt it was a factor, but I find it hard to believe it was the main factor.
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Well, the 390th seat would be Newport East I think - 6.7% swing, 4,705 majority (obviously they might well pick up a few above that and miss a few below but broadly that's the area).
They are betting favourites there (1.36 vs 3 for Labour). It's similar in that sort of area of the target list. If you think they may lose a few to the Lib Dems, maybe go 15 down the list to Slough (swing needed 7.6%, odds 1.61). And there's plenty of upside of seats with a swing between 7.6% and 10% say.
I was actually thinking the value is probably in betting on Tories to get above this level, with some bets on selected Labour holds further up the list where they appear to have strong MPs and council groups, and are likely to scrap hard.
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Very true her main consideration in calling the GE .
Right, is there any feasible way for Labour to ditch Corbyn and coronate Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper as leader 4 weeks before polling day?
The NEC, in theory, could do anything, I guess. There will be an almighty rumpus but it can be done. The Aussies would have done it by now.
No, there's a mechanism for dumping the leader against his will. It's cumbersome and requires a direct challenge: there is no provision to depose via a vote of no confidence. Labour cannot remove Corbyn now before the GE.
In any case, even if they could, they'd be mad to do so. Firstly, the act of switching leaders at this stage would be chaotic and split the party from top to bottom; secondly, it would interfere massively with election preparations: literature, timetables, campaign events, the manifesto and so on; thirdly, it'd probably mean a shadow cabinet reshuffle because Corbyn being ousted would probably mean McDonnell, Abbott and others going too - and these new shadow ministers would have to be up to media interview standard within days; fourthly, and relatedly, it'd probably mean a reshuffle of Labour's backroom staff, so the planning, organisation and media-facing side would be thrown into even more chaos; and finally - and perhaps most importantly - the left would no longer own the election result come June 8.
When the Australian Labor party changed its leader in early 1983 following a similar snap election announcement by Malcolm Fraser the election of Bob Hawke to relace its existing leader had a very positive effect on its fortunes!
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Agree. I won't be touching the spreads on CON just yet.
The conservatives won 331 seats in total in 2015 so to reach 390 they need 59 gains. On a modest 6 in Scotland and 8 in Wales that reduces it to 45 from labour, lib dems and green combined
He is advocating a political settlement in Syria though. So, in other words, trying to compromise with the most extreme of terrorists.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
To play Devil's advocate, political solutions in the past have involved sitting down with terrorists whether it be the Mau Mau, Zanu PF, the Irgun or the IRA or their various political fronts.
Corbyn and Blair are right - the only solution is a political solution but that will happen only when all sides realise they cannot "win" militarily. At the moment Assad thinks he can so he has no interest in talking unless Moscow tells him to talk.
We don't like him or who he is fighting - I get that but our history has dragged us into this whether we like it or not.
War is an extension of politics by other means.
Sometimes politics is an extension of war by other means.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
They're absolutely right. We haven't come to terms with our place in the world and somehow have a feeling that history has all gone wrong for us to end up stuck in a Europe where Germany outranks us in economic power and political influence.
The irony is that if we didn't have such a dysfunctional relationship with the EU, both the UK and the EU would have been much stronger.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
They're absolutely right. We haven't come to terms with our place in the world and somehow have a feeling that history has all gone wrong for us to end up stuck in a Europe where Germany outranks us in economic power and political influence.
The irony is that if we didn't have such a dysfunctional relationship with the EU, both the UK and the EU would have been much stronger.
@Richard_Nabavi I think Cambridge deserves it's place up there. In an analysis of results Julian Huppert retained way more of his vote than the average Lib Dem (Save a few Scots). He has a decent personal vote, and I think the Tory vote share could well go down in that constituency as he gets some tacticals.
But Huppert has lost the incumbency bonus and the Tories are less likely to vote tactically when riding so high in the polls. Cambridge was normally a Tory seat until 1992 and were only 13% behind the Libdems in 2010. It is a seat they could win from third plce - in the same way that Labour managed in 1992 and 2015.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
They're absolutely right. We haven't come to terms with our place in the world and somehow have a feeling that history has all gone wrong for us to end up stuck in a Europe where Germany outranks us in economic power and political influence.
The irony is that if we didn't have such a dysfunctional relationship with the EU, both the UK and the EU would have been much stronger.
Garbage. It had nothing to do with German power, economic or otherwise, and everything to do with the moves towards a federal state - something you support and advocate.
He is advocating a political settlement in Syria though. So, in other words, trying to compromise with the most extreme of terrorists.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
To play Devil's advocate, political solutions in the past have involved sitting down with terrorists whether it be the Mau Mau, Zanu PF, the Irgun or the IRA or their various political fronts.
Corbyn and Blair are right - the only solution is a political solution but that will happen only when all sides realise they cannot "win" militarily. At the moment Assad thinks he can so he has no interest in talking unless Moscow tells him to talk.
We don't like him or who he is fighting - I get that but our history has dragged us into this whether we like it or not.
Contemplating a political settlement with terrorists is fine if:
1. You're about to surrender and want to talk terms, as with the Irgun.
2. You're about to win and want to talk terms, as with the IRA.
3. There is a willingness to address the political issue underlying the terrorism and there is also sufficient political flexibility and military control on both sides to enable such a deal to be done.
In Syria, it's not just Assad who has no interest in coming to the table; the Daesh groups have even less reason to do so. Talking about a political settlement now simply plays into the hands of the most extreme, as they're then able to dictate terms.
"Brigitte has refused to reveal when the unlikely pair first became intimate, proclaiming it 'our secret'."
"'Nobody will ever know at what moment our story became a love story. That belongs to us. That is our secret,' she said."
The age of consent in France when one party has authority over the other - for instance, if they are their schoolteacher - is 18.
But even if he was below the age of consent when they first got it together a quarter of a century ago or so, surely she's the one who committed an offence, not him? I think (but stand to be corrected) that a statute of limitations applies to crimes in France such that she couldn't possibly be prosecuted now).
And, since he's about to become President of the Republic, is it really going to weigh on the minds of a lot of voters that he might have been the victim of a criminal offence committed by his wife in the early 1990s?
Seems like salacious nonsense with no bearing on the election to me.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
It might be going too far to say its structure was no longer fit for purpose but nobody should underestimate the part played by the EU itself in the Brexit fiasco. For a start, what kind of an authority sets up a border 3,000 miles long and makes no sensible arrangement for policing it?
Madness.
Personally I find much of the dream of the EU to be quite appealing, but the reality of it wore me down over the years. It's why I hope they do manage to do well in years to come, and grapple with some of their issues. One of my issues was often they would acknowledge problems, say things needed doing, then do nothing. I hope Brexit means they will do something and achieve their potential. At present, though, its biggest cheerleaders are in hagiography mode and lashing out, seeking punishment rather than any hint of reflection. That may change. William will say it doesn't need to reflect, they are so awesome. But all entities need to continually justify their existence, and the eu got bad at that. For need of a good neighbour - which currently they are indicating they don't want to be - I hope for both our sales they start to embody thedream a bit more. It is a good dream.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
They're absolutely right. We haven't come to terms with our place in the world and somehow have a feeling that history has all gone wrong for us to end up stuck in a Europe where Germany outranks us in economic power and political influence.
The irony is that if we didn't have such a dysfunctional relationship with the EU, both the UK and the EU would have been much stronger.
The real split is between the political and the economic. The rest of Europe had had a shitty century, constantly at war with itself. It didn't trust nation states not to do so again. So the EU emerged to supercede nation states and limit their power (to cause mischief). The UK was not in that place. We had had an entirely honourable two world wars, a centuries-long history of rock solid stability in our political system, common law, FPTP elections for seats, etc. We just didn't need the higher level control. We still don't. We are just not ever going to fit in a federal EU.
Right, is there any feasible way for Labour to ditch Corbyn and coronate Tom Watson or Yvette Cooper as leader 4 weeks before polling day?
The NEC, in theory, could do anything, I guess. There will be an almighty rumpus but it can be done. The Aussies would have done it by now.
No, there's a mechanism for dumping the leader against his will. It's cumbersome and requires a direct challenge: there is no provision to depose via a vote of no confidence. Labour cannot remove Corbyn now before the GE.
In any case, even if they could, they'd be mad to do so. Firstly, the act of switching leaders at this stage would be chaotic and split the party from top to bottom; secondly, it would interfere massively with election preparations: literature, timetables, campaign events, the manifesto and so on; thirdly, it'd probably mean a shadow cabinet reshuffle because Corbyn being ousted would probably mean McDonnell, Abbott and others going too - and these new shadow ministers would have to be up to media interview standard within days; fourthly, and relatedly, it'd probably mean a reshuffle of Labour's backroom staff, so the planning, organisation and media-facing side would be thrown into even more chaos; and finally - and perhaps most importantly - the left would no longer own the election result come June 8.
When the Australian Labor party changed its leader in early 1983 following a similar snap election announcement by Malcolm Fraser the election of Bob Hawke to relace its existing leader had a very positive effect on its fortunes!
And that's one way in which the British Labour Party differs in culture from its rather more successful Australian brother.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
Fair comment David -
I don't think he was ever as Eurosceptic as he tried to pretend but on the other hand he was no Europhile either. I don't think it mattered to him one way or the other except to the extent that it gave him problems managing his party and that was more of a problem when he got a majority than when he was in Coalition.
Just maybe if he had cared a little more one way or the other he would have pushed the reform agenda harder and might have got somewhere. But who knows? The EU is a recalcitrant beast full to the brim of vested interests.
He was neither. He was Establishment - very much a small c conservative - and wanted the EU problem to go away, and put no more effort into it than was necessary to make it go away.
He would have been with Baldwin in the 30s, Butskellite in the 50s, Heathite in the 70s, centrist in the 80s, and a Majorite in the 90s.
In the case of the EU renegotiation, he leaned far too heavily on what Heywood and Rogers told him was both in Britain's interests and was possible, and suffered for it.
Salmond and Davidson are basically doing a rerun of NI playing the part of Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively. Scottish politics is being driven to the extremes on both sides of the independence argument and it suits the main players for that to happen. Anyone in the middle gets squashed.
Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
It might be going too far to say its structure was no longer fit for purpose but nobody should underestimate the part played by the EU itself in the Brexit fiasco. For a start, what kind of an authority sets up a border 3,000 miles long and makes no sensible arrangement for policing it?
Madness.
Personally I find much of the dream of the EU to be quite appealing, but the reality of it wore me down over the years. It's why I hope they do manage to do well in years to come, and grapple with some of their issues. One of my issues was often they would acknowledge problems, say things needed doing, then do nothing. I hope Brexit means they will do something and achieve their potential. At present, though, its biggest cheerleaders are in hagiography mode and lashing out, seeking punishment rather than any hint of reflection. That may change. William will say it doesn't need to reflect, they are so awesome. But all entities need to continually justify their existence, and the eu got bad at that. For need of a good neighbour - which currently they are indicating they don't want to be - I hope for both our sales they start to embody thedream a bit more. It is a good dream.
@Richard_Nabavi I think Cambridge deserves it's place up there. In an analysis of results Julian Huppert retained way more of his vote than the average Lib Dem (Save a few Scots). He has a decent personal vote, and I think the Tory vote share could well go down in that constituency as he gets some tacticals.
But Huppert has lost the incumbency bonus and the Tories are less likely to vote tactically when riding so high in the polls. Cambridge was normally a Tory seat until 1992 and were only 13% behind the Libdems in 2010. It is a seat they could win from third plce - in the same way that Labour managed in 1992 and 2015.
What evidence is there that someone who was the MP until two years ago, and certainly knows and is known by lots of local organisations and people for whom he did casework, doesn't get a bonus? There is no magic or immutable law that says it has to be the existing incumbent only. I haven't researched it myself but common sense suggests that a former recent incumbent almost certainly does get a significant bonus. Anecdotal reports coming in from Bermondsey and Eastbourne suggests this is very much the case.
Sky News NewsdeskVerified account @SkyNewsBreak 12m12 minutes ago
The Government has failed in its High Court bid to delay publishing plans to tackle illegal air pollution until after the General Election
I wouldn't think too many votes would be lost by what is presumably an embarrassing report on air pollution, doesn't seem worth the added embarrassment of trying to legally stop people seeing it before the election.
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Very true her main consideration in calling the GE .
If that was true wouldn't the party have been better prepared? The time table has been known and the deep trouble the party might be in too for a long while. I don't doubt it was a factor, but I find it hard to believe it was the main factor.
There was no other reason to reverse her decision ruling out a snap election.If you believe that guff on the door of downing Street that she was facing opposition in parliament .It beggars believe.
@Richard_Nabavi I think Cambridge deserves it's place up there. In an analysis of results Julian Huppert retained way more of his vote than the average Lib Dem (Save a few Scots). He has a decent personal vote, and I think the Tory vote share could well go down in that constituency as he gets some tacticals.
Huppert & Zeichner are almost indistinguishable.
I think the reverse will happen and the Tory vote will go up a little. They are only the Brexit supporting party, and the East of the city supported Brexit.
I have come round to rcs’s view, a little.
I think that the Labour wards, the Brexit East of the city will not turn out as enthusiastically to vote for Zeichner as they did in 2015.
And that alone will be enough to tip the seat the LibDems way.
On the other hand , if Labour ends up on 29% nationally - barely 2% down on 2015 - an incumbency bonus for Zeichner could see his vote pretty well unchanged from 2015.
Sky News NewsdeskVerified account @SkyNewsBreak 12m12 minutes ago
The Government has failed in its High Court bid to delay publishing plans to tackle illegal air pollution until after the General Election
How can it do that with no mps
There is still a government which can publish papers. They just can't be debated in the Commons (though I think it could be in the Lords, technically?).
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Agree. I won't be touching the spreads on CON just yet.
I've said from the start - an overall majority above 50 is what is needed to secure comfort during the negotiations. much more than that will happen if Labour continue to underperform, but more is not needed.
S Its a slightly concerning development for those such as myself for whom the Union is more important than any party.
Do I detect a touch of Ruth weariness?
Not at all. I am however weary of the polarisation of our politics, principally in respect of Independence but also in respect of the EU.
I'm afraid that's the result of 30 years of propaganda against the EU. If you put at risk the constitutional framework that allowed the UK to maintain stability, don't be surprised if the whole thing breaks.
It is absurd to blame one side only in such a scenario. If Cameron had been treated with respect and there had been a willingness to grasp any of the many issues screaming out for reform in an EU structure no longer fit for purpose after its expansion we would not be here. But there wasn't. So we are.
It might be going too far to say its structure was no longer fit for purpose but nobody should underestimate the part played by the EU itself in the Brexit fiasco. For a start, what kind of an authority sets up a border 3,000 miles long and makes no sensible arrangement for policing it?
Madness.
Many Remainers (often reluctant Remainers) have made the same point, Peter.. Jossias Jessop, yourself, Pulpstar, and David Herdson. To name but a few. Hell, even Alastair Meeks had strong criticisms to make.
But the EU doesn't see itself as having played *any* role in Brexit. It thinks it's down to our Eurosceptic press, and the fringe loons of the Conservative Party. It hasn't been explained or listened to properly. That's why Brexit is happening: nothing more; nothing less.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
Yes, I was sure it wasn't an original thought, CR, but I'm gratified to find myself in such good company.
It would be unilke a politician to admit a mistake and I expect EU ones are no different to ours in that respect. What they may think privately could be a different matter. I expect there will be some however who consider that the UK is doing the EU a favor but showing the rest what happens to its errant children. It may be unfair to treat us as whipping boys, but they could at least argue we voted for it.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
They're absolutely right. We haven't come to terms with our place in the world and somehow have a feeling that history has all gone wrong for us to end up stuck in a Europe where Germany outranks us in economic power and political influence.
The irony is that if we didn't have such a dysfunctional relationship with the EU, both the UK and the EU would have been much stronger.
The real split is between the political and the economic. The rest of Europe had had a shitty century, constantly at war with itself. It didn't trust nation states not to do so again. So the EU emerged to supercede nation states and limit their power (to cause mischief). The UK was not in that place. We had had an entirely honourable two world wars, a centuries-long history of rock solid stability in our political system, common law, FPTP elections for seats, etc. We just didn't need the higher level control. We still don't. We are just not ever going to fit in a federal EU.
So rock solid that in the period covered by those two wars we fought an independence war on our own soil culminating in a partition of our territory where a frozen conflict was left to fester, and even 100 years later we still haven't noticed that the canary in the coal-mine has died.
@Richard_Nabavi I think Cambridge deserves it's place up there. In an analysis of results Julian Huppert retained way more of his vote than the average Lib Dem (Save a few Scots). He has a decent personal vote, and I think the Tory vote share could well go down in that constituency as he gets some tacticals.
But Huppert has lost the incumbency bonus and the Tories are less likely to vote tactically when riding so high in the polls. Cambridge was normally a Tory seat until 1992 and were only 13% behind the Libdems in 2010. It is a seat they could win from third plce - in the same way that Labour managed in 1992 and 2015.
What evidence is there that someone who was the MP until two years ago, and certainly knows and is known by lots of local organisations and people for whom he did casework, doesn't get a bonus? There is no magic or immutable law that says it has to be the existing incumbent only. I haven't researched it myself but common sense suggests that a former recent incumbent almost certainly does get a significant bonus. Anecdotal reports coming in from Bermondsey and Eastbourne suggests this is very much the case.
The Labour candidate for Broxtowe in 2015 appeared to lose much of the incumbency bonus he enjoyed in 2010.
If 'CPS will have to decide before polling day' will they decide before the Tories choose their candidates in the affected seats?
Is a narrow window, would have to charge before May 11th.
Which is a fortnight away or 9 working days away.
Could be embarrassing. I guess all current MPs would want re-stand.
Well Craig Mackinlay's file went to the CPS this week.
This could get very messy.
What does Alison Saunders do if there are multiple MPs to be charged ?
Do it in one go or do it one by one and dominate a lot of news cycles.
One by one please - name and shame the Tories everyday for as long as it takes (a bit like the Labour front bench resignations) - popcorn time!
The CPS have a job to do, but it will difficult for them to avoid political controversy.
They need to be careful - they need to act before 11th May otherwise it will be seen as a political act.
Theresa May has no blame in this and I am certain she will state that all her mps deny all charges
At this point it becomes sub judice and comments made would have to be measured against contempt of court
I don't see why the CPS should feel the need to be hurried along because May decided to call an election. She knew full well this was in the pipeline when she acted last week.
Very true her main consideration in calling the GE .
If that was true wouldn't the party have been better prepared? The time table has been known and the deep trouble the party might be in too for a long while. I don't doubt it was a factor, but I find it hard to believe it was the main factor.
There was no other reason to reverse her decision ruling out a snap election.If you believe that guff on the door of downing Street that she was facing opposition in parliament .It beggars believe.
I don't believe her guff and have been wondering what changed her mind in so short a time, but it still seems like she knew before that bad news would be coming on this topic, and the timeline, so that cannot be 'the thing that changed' to do so either.
My other thought on the above is whether how much upside there is for Conservative buyers at 390.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
Mr Stodge, Is the Finborough Arms organizing a GE all-nighter/piss-up this year?
I don't know - you'll have to ask Mr Stonch who doesn't post here any more.
I suspect unless you're a Conservative there won't be much to celebrate on the night of June 8/9.
A LD revival into the 20s, should that occur, would surely be worthy of celebration, as it would no doubt also come with reemergence as principal opposition in many places and thus primed for yet more gains in 2022
I quite agree, the Lib Dems seat numbers moving into the twenties, let alone the high twenties, would be a massive cause of celebration. However, let us be serious for a moment.
If polling means anything then we are looking to a doubling or even tripling of the number of seats on the back of a lift from about 8-9% to 11-12%. I know that the Lib Dems have reputation for efficient voting but two or three times the number of seats on a vote share lift of maybe 4%? Not something that I would put money on.
I wonder if we will ever be told the full story of the whys and wherefores as to how David Cameron came to be completely shafted in his attempts to re-negotiate the UK's terms with the EU Big Wigs early last year, following which the poor bloke had to suffer the indignity of having to return to these shores pretending that he had secured some form of excellent deal. Of course we weren't fooled and last June his Premiership lay in tatters when the Brits wrought their revenge, as in retrospect they were bound to do. Somehow I felt his heart was never in it.
He wasn't shafted. He knew, we knew, they knew that the Project is not up for discussion. No treaty changes were ever possible. It was simply a sham that Dave pretended he was trying. He should have taken a much, much more intellectually honest approach - saying basically 'this is where the EU is going whether we like it or not, should we go with that or shoud we leave'? If he had been that honest with himself he would have come the right conclusion - the one that the people came to. Tosser.
To be fair to WilliamGlenn, I partly agree with him. And I stress: partly.
To achieve any meaningful reform (such as red-cards and mechanisms for powers to return to national parliaments) in the EU would have taken most of his efforts from 2013 to c.2018-2019 to build consensus and alliance through the European Council, with people such as Rutte, the Scandinavians and Eastern European nations, pitch all the reforms as EU-wide, and then wrap it up in a treaty change, all the while side-stepping and dodging the federalist EU Commission and EU Parliament.
But it would have been bloody hard work, with no chance of success.
He decided to go for the quick and dirty deal, and win, instead.
I thought that nothing really changes during an election campaign ? If it is a reversal of the 2001 Labour victory it is a forgone conclusion .Even the excitement in the media of the DPM brawling with a member of the public changed nothing.However it was more exciting than listening to the current Tory mantras coalition of chaos ,which everyone knows is crap as there is no chance of it occurring If that is Crosby's best effort he is screwing the Tory party as a an unpaid official could have done better.
The only difference is that everyone expected the 2001 election whilst this has come out of the blue.In some ways it is more reminiscent of February 1974 - except that the campaign period is more than twice as long.
Comments
I do sometimes think some on here think the LDs themselves have posted up the seat numbers.
Er, no.
I said last week 15% and 20 seats might be Tim Farron's aim this time and if so then a Sell at 26 with Sporting looks inviting. The problem is the election is still 6 weeks away and there's plenty of time for things to happen.
Equivalent share 6% is about the mark, they will retain some of the stubborn anti establishment vote.
Reuters - Shots fired at a hospital in Berlin, Germany.
Wasn't there a similar incident last year at a Berlin Hospital? Some old guy shot his doctor and other patients?
Madness.
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/857600738192760832
"I can't see x, y or z" happening is such a bad way to look at things.
Bermondsey is the Lib Dem target #2 in England.
(Oh...it also has a Scouser leading it now so that's 5% off their polling right away).
Rather poor anecdata, I know ...
Guaranteed wrongness - also known as Corbynism.
Derby North is Labour target #1 in England. You can still get 6/1 on Labour on Betfair Sportsbook for it.
There will ultimately need to be a political settlement (and no doubt, Corbyn will then claim that he was right all along), but the crucial point is that it can only come off the back of either a military solution or of a genuine will to compromise on all (or nearly all) sides.
Today's Ifop will be interesting if it's for 25-27 Apr. Before R1 they were showing a lot higher scores than Opinionway for Le Pen in the hypothetical Macron-Le Pen R2.
I think the reverse will happen and the Tory vote will go up a little. They are only the Brexit supporting party, and the East of the city supported Brexit.
I have come round to rcs’s view, a little.
I think that the Labour wards, the Brexit East of the city will not turn out as enthusiastically to vote for Zeichner as they did in 2015.
And that alone will be enough to tip the seat the LibDems way.
For that reason, I would prefer with the Lib Dems simply to bet on under/over markets with the conventional bookies. I've backed sub-28.5 with Betfair, with some on sub-18.5. I might not win as much if I'm right but, equally, I know my maximum exposure with confidence.
I wonder if we will ever be told the full story of the whys and wherefores as to how David Cameron came to be completely shafted in his attempts to re-negotiate the UK's terms with the EU Big Wigs early last year, following which the poor bloke had to suffer the indignity of having to return to these shores pretending that he had secured some form of excellent deal. Of course we weren't fooled and last June his Premiership lay in tatters when the Brits wrought their revenge, as in retrospect they were bound to do. Somehow I felt his heart was never in it.
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher won 397 seats but that included 21 seats in Scotland on 28.5% of the vote and 14 seats in Wales.
I know there's a lot of talk about a Conservative revival in both Scotland and Wales but are we expecting a combined figure of 35 seats ?
In 2015, the Conservatives won 318 seats in England so assuming the Scottish/Welsh total is nearer 25 than 35 that means 365 seats in England so 47 English gains and that's just to reach 390.
In any case, even if they could, they'd be mad to do so. Firstly, the act of switching leaders at this stage would be chaotic and split the party from top to bottom; secondly, it would interfere massively with election preparations: literature, timetables, campaign events, the manifesto and so on; thirdly, it'd probably mean a shadow cabinet reshuffle because Corbyn being ousted would probably mean McDonnell, Abbott and others going too - and these new shadow ministers would have to be up to media interview standard within days; fourthly, and relatedly, it'd probably mean a reshuffle of Labour's backroom staff, so the planning, organisation and media-facing side would be thrown into even more chaos; and finally - and perhaps most importantly - the left would no longer own the election result come June 8.
Because it’s message was bluntly clear: “WE NEED TO SEND NICOLA STURGEON AND THE SNP A MESSAGE THEY CAN’T IGNORE. SO LET’S ALL TELL THE SNP: SCOTLAND DOESN’T WANT ANOTHER INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM.” Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it boasted, “are now too weak to stand up effectively to the SNP” and “Only Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives can send a strong message to the SNP”.
And there you have it, the alpha and omega of the Tory campaign this year. A single, all-purpose, message that can – and will – be deployed in every and any circumstance. The local elections? A chance to send a message to the SNP that Scotland doesn’t want a second referendum. The general election? The same as the local elections, but with added vim and gusto. When it comes to message discipline these days, even Theresa May must give way to Ms Davidson and her colleagues in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.
https://capx.co/why-scotland-is-about-to-vote-on-independence-again/
Corbyn and Blair are right - the only solution is a political solution but that will happen only when all sides realise they cannot "win" militarily. At the moment Assad thinks he can so he has no interest in talking unless Moscow tells him to talk.
We don't like him or who he is fighting - I get that but our history has dragged us into this whether we like it or not.
Is the Finborough Arms organizing a GE all-nighter/piss-up this year?
Just maybe if he had cared a little more one way or the other he would have pushed the reform agenda harder and might have got somewhere. But who knows? The EU is a recalcitrant beast full to the brim of vested interests.
I suspect unless you're a Conservative there won't be much to celebrate on the night of June 8/9.
"Brigitte has refused to reveal when the unlikely pair first became intimate, proclaiming it 'our secret'."
"'Nobody will ever know at what moment our story became a love story. That belongs to us. That is our secret,' she said."
The age of consent in France when one party has authority over the other - for instance, if they are their schoolteacher - is 18.
Philip SimVerified account @BBCPhilipSim 8m8 minutes ago
Holyrood by-election for Ettrick Roxburgh & Berwickshire seat will be held on same day as #GE17, @ScotParl confirms
Unders/Overs are the preferable way to bet against the LD's. Dependening on odds, of course.
One (outlier?) poll with the LD's on 20% would - at least on my reading of the current market sentiment - see their spread price rocket.
Just something to be aware of if you're tempted to sell the yellows at their current price.
Go to options
Turn on "Cash out" - See the number ?
That's how much you'll win if you lay Le Pen.
Don't hit it, instead lay Le Pen till you have zero Le Pen and then wait for the money to roll in on Macron.
Thank me in a week's time.
But the EU doesn't see itself as having played *any* role in Brexit. It thinks it's down to our Eurosceptic press, and the fringe loons of the Conservative Party. It hasn't been explained or listened to properly. That's why Brexit is happening: nothing more; nothing less.
In other words, they think Brexit is our problem, not theirs.
The Government has failed in its High Court bid to delay publishing plans to tackle illegal air pollution until after the General Election
They are betting favourites there (1.36 vs 3 for Labour). It's similar in that sort of area of the target list. If you think they may lose a few to the Lib Dems, maybe go 15 down the list to Slough (swing needed 7.6%, odds 1.61). And there's plenty of upside of seats with a swing between 7.6% and 10% say.
I was actually thinking the value is probably in betting on Tories to get above this level, with some bets on selected Labour holds further up the list where they appear to have strong MPs and council groups, and are likely to scrap hard.
Sometimes politics is an extension of war by other means.
The irony is that if we didn't have such a dysfunctional relationship with the EU, both the UK and the EU would have been much stronger.
1. You're about to surrender and want to talk terms, as with the Irgun.
2. You're about to win and want to talk terms, as with the IRA.
3. There is a willingness to address the political issue underlying the terrorism and there is also sufficient political flexibility and military control on both sides to enable such a deal to be done.
In Syria, it's not just Assad who has no interest in coming to the table; the Daesh groups have even less reason to do so. Talking about a political settlement now simply plays into the hands of the most extreme, as they're then able to dictate terms.
And, since he's about to become President of the Republic, is it really going to weigh on the minds of a lot of voters that he might have been the victim of a criminal offence committed by his wife in the early 1990s?
Seems like salacious nonsense with no bearing on the election to me.
He would have been with Baldwin in the 30s, Butskellite in the 50s, Heathite in the 70s, centrist in the 80s, and a Majorite in the 90s.
In the case of the EU renegotiation, he leaned far too heavily on what Heywood and Rogers told him was both in Britain's interests and was possible, and suffered for it.
Gov been refused leave to appeal so now has to apply to Appeal court for permission #airpollution
Judge said sec of state for environment Andrea Leadsom was in breach of court order
It would be unilke a politician to admit a mistake and I expect EU ones are no different to ours in that respect. What they may think privately could be a different matter. I expect there will be some however who consider that the UK is doing the EU a favor but showing the rest what happens to its errant children. It may be unfair to treat us as whipping boys, but they could at least argue we voted for it.
It would be tough to argue with that.
If polling means anything then we are looking to a doubling or even tripling of the number of seats on the back of a lift from about 8-9% to 11-12%. I know that the Lib Dems have reputation for efficient voting but two or three times the number of seats on a vote share lift of maybe 4%? Not something that I would put money on.