Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Well, the voteshare deficit will probably be a few points worse than 11% in the GE proper.
On the other hand, it does seem to me looking at the seat-by-seat results that Labour generally held up better than UNS in most of their "heartland" seats. Even in the West Midlands, their vote held up well in Birmingham, Coventry and Walsall (where people have been forecasting Tory gains), while slumping even further behind in Dudley for example.
The upshot being that, in damage limitation, Lab should beat expectations, limiting seat losses to "only" around 30-40 seats IMO -- but the other side of the coin will be that it will be harder than ever for them to get a majority in the medium-/long-term, because they'll be facing North Korean-sized Tory majorities in the seats which they lost to the Tories in 2010 and 2015.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Only because the LDs got 18%, almost half of that is a LD local and Tory national vote which will switch to May next month
How long will it be before IRA and NI violence in general becomes a historical footnote for most people? Will today's young really understand its importance?
A while back I read an anecdote about the Shuttle program. At its end, a manager (I think Wayne Hale) in the Shuttle program was tasked to help write the definitive history of the Shuttle's operations. A team assembled, and it was written. There was a final check of the text with some interns, who would not be too familiar with the program and would catch any assumed insider knowledge.
During the review of one chapter, one of the interns said there was a term she did not understand. It was 'the Cold War'.
Excellent analytical article. My one caveat would be the SW London seats - I suspect Zac will be back [ unfortunately] and am not convinced even on Twickenham. they will need to get and maintain considerable momentum and I'd expect a fierce fightback from the Tories. Time of course will tell.
Does anyone know the % vote shares yesterday for Scotland?
First preferences have been estimated as SNP 35% Con 23% Lab 21%.
So The Ruth Davidson party barely better than SLab, and a significantly worse vote share than Corbyn Labour in England.
'Only one winner'
Their achievements can and perhaps are being outplayed, but this continual acting from some that changed, sometimes significantly, direction of travel is therefore meaningless is no better. It isn't either a landslide triumph or dire loss, there are inbetweens, and where people started is relevant. Say the LDs went from 9 seats to (somehow) overtaking Labour in Westminster - would they not be 'winners' if the Tories won a landslide? Of course they would, they would have made (unbelievably good, in this hypothetical) progress, even if someone else did better.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Locals are not the same as GEs. What each of them got might be very different in a GE scenario. Presently it seems probable it would be worse for Labour, like 1983 where the GE gap was bigger than the locals, but it is technically possible Lab could do better.
True but Stalin still killed even more than Hitler did
I think we all need to move on, frankly - the electorate has (and so in my limited experience have most Russians). I used to be a (Euro)Communist and told my voters about it back in 2000 or thereabouts. Nobody complained - the reaction was exactly was as if I'd said I used to be a Mormon, mildly interesting, worth a raised eyebrow, but no longer relevant. I was re-elected with good majorities in both following elections. 17 years later, I don't think it matters to anyone much in Britain what we think of people's actions 70 years ago. My mum was an ex-Russian who came to Brkitain in the 30s, voted Tory but quite liked Stalin for (eventually) standing up to Hitler - that's historically interesting family history to me, but she died 18 years ago and it's very much yesterday's argument.
In the same way, almost nobody hates the Argentinians over the Falklands, and not many people still feel strongly about the IRA either (I know Southam disagrees!) - a deal's been done, the past is the past. It's possible to get too caught up in this stuff, and voters just switch off.
A lot of what you say may make sense, but you're led by Corbyn, and one of the biggest parts of his appeal is that he doesn't move on from anything, that he is still holding broadly the same values, policies and opinions as he did 34 years ago. Everyone else has to move on, but he is allowed to hold basically the same views for 34 years, and for it to be a positive?
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Only if you take the local vote shares and assume exactly the same for the GE. History suggests this doesn't work well. A more appropriate forecast would be to take the change in vote shares from 2015 and apply this to the GE of that year. That puts the Tories in a better position. And of course voters who managed to overlook the Corbyn factor when it came to backing their county councillor may not find it so easy next month.
How long will it be before IRA and NI violence in general becomes a historical footnote for most people? Will today's young really understand its importance?
A while back I read an anecdote about the Shuttle program. At its end, a manager (I think Wayne Hale) in the Shuttle program was tasked to help write the definitive history of the Shuttle's operations. A team assembled, and it was written. There was a final check of the text with some interns, who would not be too familiar with the program and would catch any assumed insider knowledge.
During the review of one chapter, one of the interns said there was a term she did not understand. It was 'the Cold War'.
At the moment, the group that vote on mass, the oldies, certainly still remember it very well. Those in their 50s+ and worked in cities like Birmingham and Manchester haven't forgotten about it.
ou should know there's an entire nation in South America which would probably like to shove that fucking horrible and very relevant flag up your ridiculous and imbecilic butt.
Most people in Venezuela remember Chavez fondly. He had one of the biggest funerals in the history of the world. So before you continue in that florid epithetic style (is it the flag or the pole you're talking about anyway?), you should reconsider the phrase "entire nation". Last I heard, the only countries in Latin America with full literacy were Cuba (achieved shortly after Castro came to office), Venezuela (Chavez), and Bolivia (Morales). Perhaps Ecuador is now on the list.
"They remember Chavez fondly". Really? Is that why they are tearing down statues of the man?
As for literacy and development, the richest and most advanced nation in South America is Chile, pretty much a First World Country, now. Coincidentally, they managed to avoid communism and socialism altogether.
Bolivia, meanwhile, is the poorest nation on the continent (though now rivalled by Venezuela)
A lot of Chileans give quiet thanks to Pinochet, for all his horrors. I know this, because I was in Chile and Bolivia late last year.
To be fair, Bolivia is landlocked and fairly hilly if I remember my geography.
And it's been dumped on by every nation around, and ransacked by every empire. Bolivia is land of very nice people, pretty horrible food, spectacular landscapes, intriguing cultures, and distressing pockets of serious poverty. Plus the Road of Death. And the salt flats of Uyuni! And Titicaca and the Island of the Sun...
I had a great time. It's a daunting place to visit - the altitude is relentless - but brilliantly unforgettable. If you ever get the chance, go.
According to this it is one of 22 countries that we haven't invaded (or, looking at it more closely, been at war with in some form).
The list is wrong at least in regards to having Sweden on the list of countries the UK has never 'invaded' - in the 1810-1812 Anglo-Swedish war we occupied a Swedish island - albeit with no opposition and, indeed, Swedish cooperation in that they wanted to continue trading with us and were only forced into declaring war against the UK by Napoleon Ironic fact - the only deaths in that war were when the Swedes tried to conscript Swedish farmers, who resisted.
I seem to remember that the SNP are quite keen to get to look at the books in Glasgow: is there anything to that? What are they expecting to find?
Decades of corruption and nepotism - quangos that do nothing other than provide jobs for the boys and their families - dodgy property deals etc etc etc.
I think there's probably enough for Private Eye to run a few Glasgow/SLAB rottenburgh special editions !!
If there is anything there, would it come out in time for the general?
Even if it does, SLAB's rottenburgh rep in Glasgow & West is well known , so probably wouldn't have that much impact.
It should remind you of the danger of one party rule for too long.
So we only have a few more decades before the SNP recede? That doesn't fill me with confidence.
Excellent analytical article. My one caveat would be the SW London seats - I suspect Zac will be back [ unfortunately] and am not convinced even on Twickenham. they will need to get and maintain considerable momentum and I'd expect a fierce fightback from the Tories. Time of course will tell.
Does anyone know the % vote shares yesterday for Scotland?
First preferences have been estimated as SNP 35% Con 23% Lab 21%.
That sounds about right. Do you have a link?
Not at moment. It was mentioned on Polling Report.
How long will it be before IRA and NI violence in general becomes a historical footnote for most people? Will today's young really understand its importance?
A while back I read an anecdote about the Shuttle program. At its end, a manager (I think Wayne Hale) in the Shuttle program was tasked to help write the definitive history of the Shuttle's operations. A team assembled, and it was written. There was a final check of the text with some interns, who would not be too familiar with the program and would catch any assumed insider knowledge.
During the review of one chapter, one of the interns said there was a term she did not understand. It was 'the Cold War'.
Back in 1975, my maths teacher told us something that shocked her (remember this is 1975, not now). Her child of four or five had asked "Mommy, did you know that Paul McCartney of Wings used to be in a band called the Beetles?"
I seem to remember that the SNP are quite keen to get to look at the books in Glasgow: is there anything to that? What are they expecting to find?
Decades of corruption and nepotism - quangos that do nothing other than provide jobs for the boys and their families - dodgy property deals etc etc etc.
I think there's probably enough for Private Eye to run a few Glasgow/SLAB rottenburgh special editions !!
If there is anything there, would it come out in time for the general?
Even if it does, SLAB's rottenburgh rep in Glasgow & West is well known , so probably wouldn't have that much impact.
It should remind you of the danger of one party rule for too long.
So we only have a few more decades before the SNP recede? That doesn't fill me with confidence.
In Quebec the Partis Quebecois and then the Bloc Quebecois held most seats in Quebec at most provincial or national elections from 1976 until 2015
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
The Tories will be delighted by all this talk of a smallish majority because they one thing they were afraid of was complacency from their own supporters.
How long will it be before IRA and NI violence in general becomes a historical footnote for most people? Will today's young really understand its importance?
A while back I read an anecdote about the Shuttle program. At its end, a manager (I think Wayne Hale) in the Shuttle program was tasked to help write the definitive history of the Shuttle's operations. A team assembled, and it was written. There was a final check of the text with some interns, who would not be too familiar with the program and would catch any assumed insider knowledge.
During the review of one chapter, one of the interns said there was a term she did not understand. It was 'the Cold War'.
At the moment, the group that vote on mass, the oldies, certainly still remember it very well. Those in their 50s+ and worked in cities like Birmingham and Manchester haven't forgotten about it.
I'm 44, and heard three IRA bombs go off. One in Derby, and two London ones in the 1990s. I hope my son doesn't have to say the same, and that the violence becomes a historical footnote for him.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Only because the LDs got 18%, almost half of that is a LD local and Tory national vote which will switch to May next month
To the extent some local Lib Dem votes are "borrowed", why do you suppose it's borrowed almost entirely from the Tories? On the contrary, it's likely that the "Lib Dem local/someone else national" vote would split fairly evenly. That half the 18% will transfer across to the Cons en masse, with virtually none to Labour, is frankly delusional.
I do agree with you that the Tories will get a better vote share next month, and Labour worse. But that will be primarily due to Labour to Tory switching - "do you like your Labour councillor?" is a different question to "do you want Corbyn as PM?" and the latter is plainly harder to answer in the affirmative. There will be virtually nobody going the other way (i.e. it would be pretty eccentric to like your Tory councillor but want Corbyn as PM).
Don't see much on here re SNP increasing their vote share and number of councillors , already at an all time high, yesterday. Media as ever trying to make out Tories won , they are almost as biased as PB. Did the tide stop at Berwick.
They were down slightly in terms of numbers based on the notional results on the new boundaries. SNP won, but SCON were the biggest gainers of the night.
True - though SLAB outperformed expectations more than the Tories.Few expected them to poll 21/22%.
Looks like they did better than expected mostly in places like Glasgow and Dundee. I think that gives them a very tough ask in the GE - harder than the Tories for picking up a few seats.
I think Labour could end up with 4 or 5 seats in Scotland. East Lothian - Edinburgh North - Dumbarton - one of the Paisley seats . Also Renfrew East seems to be a threeway marginal.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
I think they're heading for either 25% or 26% at the moment.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
Nonsense, we've just seen that 23% for a main opposition party can in fact be a victory.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
Except Labour in 2015 beat their voteshares from both the 2013 and 2014 locals.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
Except Labour in 2015 beat their voteshares from both the 2013 and 2014 locals.
Corbyn will be harder to dislidge if Labour gets close to 30%.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Only because the LDs got 18%, almost half of that is a LD local and Tory national vote which will switch to May next month
To the extent some local Lib Dem votes are "borrowed", why do you suppose it's borrowed almost entirely from the Tories? On the contrary, it's likely that the "Lib Dem local/someone else national" vote would split fairly evenly. That half the 18% will transfer across to the Cons en masse, with virtually none to Labour, is frankly delusional.
I do agree with you that the Tories will get a better vote share next month, and Labour worse. But that will be primarily due to Labour to Tory switching - "do you like your Labour councillor?" is a different question to "do you want Corbyn as PM?" and the latter is plainly harder to answer in the affirmative. There will be virtually nobody going the other way (i.e. it would be pretty eccentric to like your Tory councillor but want Corbyn as PM).
The geography of where yesterday's elections were plus the geography of where LibDem councillors tend to be probably mean that the vote share figures contain a disproportionate number of Tory national/LibDem local switchers. My mother being one of them. Nevertheless the factor that may come into play next month is tactical voting. This may help the LibDems, if the Labour people who suddenly stopped voting tactically in 2015 are more willing to do so this time.
I am sceptical however that defending Labour MPs will benefit in the same way - pitching their party at the extreme and being on the Brexit fence will repel many LibDems. There is a rumour that the Labour manifesto may commit to electoral reform, but doubt this will be enough (especially as Labour's spokepeople on the airwaves Thurs night either hadn't been briefed or don't agree).
Incidentally, (slightly random question) does anyone know what the figures were for the 1979 European elections in Scotland?
I came across figures a while back which said that the Conservatives actually narrowly beat Labour that time -- but it's hard to find corroboration anywhere online, and that's contrary to the narrative that 2016 was the first time since the 50s that the Tories had beaten Labour in ANY Scottish election.
The Conservatives beat Labour in lots of unlikely places in the 1979 European election, including, I think, Liverpool - much of the Labour movement was still quite anti-European at the time, a position it decided to demonstrate by not participating in the elections at all.
' I have had a look at the local by-elections held in county wards since the referendum and worked on the assumption that dependent on how that county voted at the referendum, the local by-elections will be indicative of the final result '
Now the 15 counties which had boundary changes didn't get a councillor prediction but for the others HH predicted:
Con 646 Lab 208 LibD 317
The actual results were:
Con 793 Lab 241 LibD 162
A difference of:
Con +147 Lab +33 LibD -155
In every single prediction the LibDems were too high.
As a predictive tool local by-elections are shite, as a method for ramping LibDem chances they're great.
Interestingly, the LDs actually did fine from a "number of votes" perspective. In total, they got 40.3% more actual votes than in 2013. But what hammered them was that - in most cases - the wards they were competing in were against Conservatives, who were up more.
Take Cornwall. Their total number of votes increased almost 35% across the county. A pretty good result, yes? No, because while they went from 23% to 30% of the vote, the Conservatives went from 25% to 35%. (UKIP in Cornwall went from 15% of the vote to under 2%.)
' I have had a look at the local by-elections held in county wards since the referendum and worked on the assumption that dependent on how that county voted at the referendum, the local by-elections will be indicative of the final result '
Now the 15 counties which had boundary changes didn't get a councillor prediction but for the others HH predicted:
Con 646 Lab 208 LibD 317
The actual results were:
Con 793 Lab 241 LibD 162
A difference of:
Con +147 Lab +33 LibD -155
In every single prediction the LibDems were too high.
As a predictive tool local by-elections are shite, as a method for ramping LibDem chances they're great.
Interestingly, the LDs actually did fine from a "number of votes" perspective. In total, they got 40.3% more actual votes than in 2013. But what hammered them was that - in most cases - the wards they were competing in were against Conservatives, who were up more.
Take Cornwall. Their total number of votes increased almost 35% across the county. A pretty good result, yes? No, because while they went from 23% to 30% of the vote, the Conservatives went from 25% to 35%. (UKIP in Cornwall went from 15% of the vote to under 2%.)
The LieDems are on their way out in most areas. They may hang on in a few odd places, like O&S, and even gain the odd seat or two on 8/6/17, but overall they are an irrelevance.
People here seem to be confusing "Labour will be further behind the Tories in the general election than they were in the local elections", with "Labour's own voteshare will be lower in the general election than in the local elections". The former can (and probably will) be true, even without the latter being true, namely because the LibDems and independent candidates always do MUCH better in local elections than generals, and therefore the overall two-party share in GEs is higher than in locals.
My prediction for voteshares right now would be Conservative 43% - Labour 28% - Lib Dems 12%.
On Topic. On the basis of the LD performance in The Locals I am guessing at a 14% Vote share in June & between 12 & 18 Seats. That is on the assumption of no Political earthquakes & there are at least 2 possible earthquakes that could easily happen. The Tories could be badly damaged if The CPS goes ahead with prosecutions. Labour are very badly divided & under enormous pressure, they could crack. Politics will continue after June, Labour will continue its slow, painful decline & Brexit is a time-bomb under the Tory Throne. The LD Revival has been postponed, not killed off.
If Theresa May achieves a good majority expect her to take on the EU rejecting their financial and silly demands for EU citizens to have lifetime rights underscored by the ECJ.
In other words she will call their bluff empowered by the mandate of the GE
1. It's just talk to harvest gullible voters. Afterwards, serious negotiations will start, on the expected lines - a broad agreement on the initial issues (£££s, foreign residents' rights) subject to subsequent agreement on trade, then a deal on trade.
2. May actually means it. In that case we're in for a wild ride. All the stuff about security and stability can be chucked in the bin.
My guess is still 1, but I'm less sure than I was.
Yep, totally agree. There will be nothing strong, stable or unchaotic about a Brexit with no deal. Put it this way: no deal has been on the table since 24th June 2016. If it were in the UK's best interests the government would already have announced it had no interest in negotiating our withdrawal or a trade deal. It would hust be sitting tight until Brexit day came round.
No they wouldn't, because it would be publicly unsellable despite being economically tenable.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
Except Labour in 2015 beat their voteshares from both the 2013 and 2014 locals.
No, they did fractionally worse in 2015 than their 2014 NEV, and fractionally better than their 2013 NEV.
But, in any event, we go back to Corbyn and his team. For all the criticism of Miliband at the time and since, much of it justified, was Miliband v Cameron the mismatch Corbyn v May will be? Absolutely no way. And the Tories will of course hammer the leadership point which may have been on people's minds on Thursday, but wasn't actually something their local vote could possibly determine.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
the 27% for labour is their ceiling if u look at past local election results. So just a fall of say 3% then that is 24%. TWENTY FOUR PER CENT for the main opposition party would be a disaster.
Except Labour in 2015 beat their voteshares from both the 2013 and 2014 locals.
Corbyn will be harder to dislidge if Labour gets close to 30%.
I expect that Labour will get close to 30%, but lose about 70 seats due to the UKIP collapse/switch to the Tories. This may make it difficult to shift Corbyn - the best thing would be if he announced that he would go voluntarily at the end of 2017 with an election to replace him after the party conference under new rules that don't allow the PLP to dictate things.
SNP really should have gained an overall majority in Glasgow yesterday.
Also John nicolson MP looked really shellshocked on the BBC yesterday, he was trying to spin the result as really bad for the Lib Dems instead of attacking the tories which I thought was interesting.
Heard some interesting, head-shaking stuff about the police investigations into the MPs and agents accused of expenses fiddling. Will share some of it later....
I see Ladbrokes now have the Tories at 6-1 (from 16-1 y'day) in Sheffield Hallam.... which reminded me that I only got a £10 on that so put the rest I'd deposited on the Spanners ruining my Spurs hopes...
Small consolation to collect a 3 figure sum just now.... still gutted though.
Don't see much on here re SNP increasing their vote share and number of councillors , already at an all time high, yesterday. Media as ever trying to make out Tories won , they are almost as biased as PB. Did the tide stop at Berwick.
They were down slightly in terms of numbers based on the notional results on the new boundaries. SNP won, but SCON were the biggest gainers of the night.
True - though SLAB outperformed expectations more than the Tories.Few expected them to poll 21/22%.
SCON just managed to beat SLAB - perhaps we've already seen peak SCON
When was the last time SCON beat SLAB in a comparable election?
Errr, last year?
Again, isn't Holyrood meant to be a national election and not a local election? Bit of an insult on Holyrood to say it is comparable to locals.
Was it that bad for Labour? Sky was saying that if you extrapolate from vote share the Tories would get a Commons majority of about 40, which isn't much more than Dave achieved. So entirely manageable from Labour's perspective. Perhaps Labours should relax.
Only if you take the local vote shares and assume exactly the same for the GE. History suggests this doesn't work well. A more appropriate forecast would be to take the change in vote shares from 2015 and apply this to the GE of that year. That puts the Tories in a better position. And of course voters who managed to overlook the Corbyn factor when it came to backing their county councillor may not find it so easy next month.
On the BBC News channel, Peter Kellner said that in the last 50 years, comparing the last local election with the general election that follows, in the general election, the Tories never got a lower share of the vote than in the local election, while Labour never got a higher share of the vote than in the local election.
I don't know the truth of this (I leave that to the statistics gurus), but interesting, if true.
Heard some interesting, head-shaking stuff about the police investigations into the MPs and agents accused of expenses fiddling. Will share some of it later....
I see Ladbrokes now have the Tories at 6-1 (from 16-1 y'day) in Sheffield Hallam.... which reminded me that I only got a £10 on that so put the rest I'd deposited on the Spanners ruining my Spurs hopes...
Small consolation to collect a 3 figure sum just now.... still gutted though.
Like the ludicrously high initial estimations by Lib Dems of 40-50 seats, the Sheffield odds for the Conservative feel like people letting emotion affect their betting.
Are the Conservatives getting a 13% swing, in a Remain constituency, in a city where they have precisely zero councillors? At the risk of looking like a fool on 9th June, that's a firm "no".
Don't see much on here re SNP increasing their vote share and number of councillors , already at an all time high, yesterday. Media as ever trying to make out Tories won , they are almost as biased as PB. Did the tide stop at Berwick.
They were down slightly in terms of numbers based on the notional results on the new boundaries. SNP won, but SCON were the biggest gainers of the night.
True - though SLAB outperformed expectations more than the Tories.Few expected them to poll 21/22%.
Looks like they did better than expected mostly in places like Glasgow and Dundee. I think that gives them a very tough ask in the GE - harder than the Tories for picking up a few seats.
I think Labour could end up with 4 or 5 seats in Scotland. East Lothian - Edinburgh North - Dumbarton - one of the Paisley seats . Also Renfrew East seems to be a threeway marginal.
I think 3 is possible. I think Dumbarton is part of West Dunbartonshire. East Lothian is on. Labour won both in 2016 Holyrood as well as Edinburgh South.
SNP really should have gained an overall majority in Glasgow yesterday.
Also John nicolson MP looked really shellshocked on the BBC yesterday, he was trying to spin the result as really bad for the Lib Dems instead of attacking the tories which I thought was interesting.
FWIW John Curtis predicted the SNP would just become the largest party - not gain overall control.
Incidentally, (slightly random question) does anyone know what the figures were for the 1979 European elections in Scotland?
I came across figures a while back which said that the Conservatives actually narrowly beat Labour that time -- but it's hard to find corroboration anywhere online, and that's contrary to the narrative that 2016 was the first time since the 50s that the Tories had beaten Labour in ANY Scottish election.
Made on this basis: ' I have had a look at the local by-elections held in county wards since the referendum and worked on the assumption that dependent on how that county voted at the referendum, the local by-elections will be indicative of the final result ' Now the 15 counties which had boundary changes didn't get a councillor prediction but for the others HH predicted:
Con 646 Lab 208 LibD 317
The actual results were:
Con 793 Lab 241 LibD 162
A difference of:
Con +147 Lab +33 LibD -155
In every single prediction the LibDems were too high. As a predictive tool local by-elections are shite, as a method for ramping LibDem chances they're great.
Maybe Mr Hayfield believed Mrs May when she said, on countless occasions, that there would be no general election until 2020. He should have taken account of the fact that Conservatives are treacherous liars. But for that, he would have been spot on.
Made on this basis: ' I have had a look at the local by-elections held in county wards since the referendum and worked on the assumption that dependent on how that county voted at the referendum, the local by-elections will be indicative of the final result ' Now the 15 counties which had boundary changes didn't get a councillor prediction but for the others HH predicted:
Con 646 Lab 208 LibD 317
The actual results were:
Con 793 Lab 241 LibD 162
A difference of:
Con +147 Lab +33 LibD -155
In every single prediction the LibDems were too high. As a predictive tool local by-elections are shite, as a method for ramping LibDem chances they're great.
Maybe Mr Hayfield believed Mrs May when she said, on countless occasions, that there would be no general election until 2020. He should have taken account of the fact that Conservatives are treacherous liars. But for that, he would have been spot on.
Another LibDem bad loser.
I doubt it will be long before you're ramping the LibDems in the Dunny-On-The-Wold parish by-election.
I see Ladbrokes now have the Tories at 6-1 (from 16-1 y'day) in Sheffield Hallam.... which reminded me that I only got a £10 on that so put the rest I'd deposited on the Spanners ruining my Spurs hopes...
Small consolation to collect a 3 figure sum just now.... still gutted though.
Like the ludicrously high initial estimations by Lib Dems of 40-50 seats, the Sheffield odds for the Conservative feel like people letting emotion affect their betting.
Are the Conservatives getting a 13% swing, in a Remain constituency, in a city where they have precisely zero councillors? At the risk of looking like a fool on 9th June, that's a firm "no".
Indeed.
The Conservative vote in Sheffield Hallam has declined for the last eight general elections, even though the boundaries are now more favourable for them
They have also not won a single council election since 2004.
Last year the Tories were over 12,000 votes behind the LibDems and over 5,000 behind Labour for that matter:
Don't see much on here re SNP increasing their vote share and number of councillors , already at an all time high, yesterday. Media as ever trying to make out Tories won , they are almost as biased as PB. Did the tide stop at Berwick.
They were down slightly in terms of numbers based on the notional results on the new boundaries. SNP won, but SCON were the biggest gainers of the night.
True - though SLAB outperformed expectations more than the Tories.Few expected them to poll 21/22%.
Looks like they did better than expected mostly in places like Glasgow and Dundee. I think that gives them a very tough ask in the GE - harder than the Tories for picking up a few seats.
I think Labour could end up with 4 or 5 seats in Scotland. East Lothian - Edinburgh North - Dumbarton - one of the Paisley seats . Also Renfrew East seems to be a threeway marginal.
I think 3 is possible. I think Dumbarton is part of West Dunbartonshire. East Lothian is on. Labour won both in 2016 Holyrood as well as Edinburgh South.
Midlothian is now possible based on this week's council results. The SNP have gone backwards quite significantly. Edinburgh North and Leith is unlikely.
In every single prediction the LibDems were too high. As a predictive tool local by-elections are shite, as a method for ramping LibDem chances they're great.
Maybe Mr Hayfield believed Mrs May when she said, on countless occasions, that there would be no general election until 2020. He should have taken account of the fact that Conservatives are treacherous liars. But for that, he would have been spot on.
Another LibDem bad loser. I doubt it will be long before you're ramping the LibDems in the Dunny-On-The-Wold parish by-election.
Maybe, Mr Richard. But I learned very early in my life not to play cards with people who cheat.
Comments
On the other hand, it does seem to me looking at the seat-by-seat results that Labour generally held up better than UNS in most of their "heartland" seats. Even in the West Midlands, their vote held up well in Birmingham, Coventry and Walsall (where people have been forecasting Tory gains), while slumping even further behind in Dudley for example.
The upshot being that, in damage limitation, Lab should beat expectations, limiting seat losses to "only" around 30-40 seats IMO -- but the other side of the coin will be that it will be harder than ever for them to get a majority in the medium-/long-term, because they'll be facing North Korean-sized Tory majorities in the seats which they lost to the Tories in 2010 and 2015.
A while back I read an anecdote about the Shuttle program. At its end, a manager (I think Wayne Hale) in the Shuttle program was tasked to help write the definitive history of the Shuttle's operations. A team assembled, and it was written. There was a final check of the text with some interns, who would not be too familiar with the program and would catch any assumed insider knowledge.
During the review of one chapter, one of the interns said there was a term she did not understand. It was 'the Cold War'.
Edit: source of the anecdote:
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/unfamiliar-terms/
And the book:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/wingsinorbit/
http://commentcentral.co.uk/what-the-local-election-results-mean/
The website appears to be too busy. Surely not just PB - someone popular must have tweeted a link?
I do agree with you that the Tories will get a better vote share next month, and Labour worse. But that will be primarily due to Labour to Tory switching - "do you like your Labour councillor?" is a different question to "do you want Corbyn as PM?" and the latter is plainly harder to answer in the affirmative. There will be virtually nobody going the other way (i.e. it would be pretty eccentric to like your Tory councillor but want Corbyn as PM).
I am sceptical however that defending Labour MPs will benefit in the same way - pitching their party at the extreme and being on the Brexit fence will repel many LibDems. There is a rumour that the Labour manifesto may commit to electoral reform, but doubt this will be enough (especially as Labour's spokepeople on the airwaves Thurs night either hadn't been briefed or don't agree).
Take Cornwall. Their total number of votes increased almost 35% across the county. A pretty good result, yes? No, because while they went from 23% to 30% of the vote, the Conservatives went from 25% to 35%. (UKIP in Cornwall went from 15% of the vote to under 2%.)
'How Labour Lost Glasgow'
https://tinyurl.com/mxqs3e2
My prediction for voteshares right now would be Conservative 43% - Labour 28% - Lib Dems 12%.
On the basis of the LD performance in The Locals I am guessing at a 14% Vote share in June & between 12 & 18 Seats.
That is on the assumption of no Political earthquakes & there are at least 2 possible earthquakes that could easily happen.
The Tories could be badly damaged if The CPS goes ahead with prosecutions.
Labour are very badly divided & under enormous pressure, they could crack.
Politics will continue after June, Labour will continue its slow, painful decline & Brexit is a time-bomb under the Tory Throne.
The LD Revival has been postponed, not killed off.
But, in any event, we go back to Corbyn and his team. For all the criticism of Miliband at the time and since, much of it justified, was Miliband v Cameron the mismatch Corbyn v May will be? Absolutely no way. And the Tories will of course hammer the leadership point which may have been on people's minds on Thursday, but wasn't actually something their local vote could possibly determine.
Also John nicolson MP looked really shellshocked on the BBC yesterday, he was trying to spin the result as really bad for the Lib Dems instead of attacking the tories which I thought was interesting.
Small consolation to collect a 3 figure sum just now.... still gutted though.
I don't know the truth of this (I leave that to the statistics gurus), but interesting, if true.
Are the Conservatives getting a 13% swing, in a Remain constituency, in a city where they have precisely zero councillors? At the risk of looking like a fool on 9th June, that's a firm "no".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_1979_(United_Kingdom)
I make it:
Tories - 430,772
Lab - 421,968
Libs - 178,433
Nats - 247,836
I doubt it will be long before you're ramping the LibDems in the Dunny-On-The-Wold parish by-election.
The Conservative vote in Sheffield Hallam has declined for the last eight general elections, even though the boundaries are now more favourable for them
They have also not won a single council election since 2004.
Last year the Tories were over 12,000 votes behind the LibDems and over 5,000 behind Labour for that matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_City_Council_election,_2016
Why people throw money onto bets which they know nothing about is a mystery.