Blyth Valley would surely be the shock of the night, though I had it very close on my model. Will Ronnie Campbell's personal vote be enough to stem the wwc Tory tsunami ? I am on here for the pennies Paddy allowed me at 4-1,
If Labour are on 30 that's the same as 2015. Given the unique circumstances of the election that's not bad. Corbyn would have an argument to stay.
Do you think Labour will make 30% on June 8th?
I thought Prof Curtis said the Locals implied an 11% lead over Lab nationally. Given only Shires voted.
So what were his numbers ..... Tories circa 42%, Labour 31%, LibDems 12%, UKIP 5%, others 10% or such like?
I seem to remember 38/27. Which of course is absolute rubbish in relation to the GE. I don't know why anyone is paying any attention at all to his NEV numbers.
That's about the worst result for the country....big majority for Tories and good enough for Labour that the Supreme leader can claim he is on the right path and should carry on.
If Labour are on 30 that's the same as 2015. Given the unique circumstances of the election that's not bad. Corbyn would have an argument to stay.
Do you think Labour will make 30% on June 8th?
I thought Prof Curtis said the Locals implied an 11% lead over Lab nationally. Given only Shires voted.
So what were his numbers ..... Tories circa 42%, Labour 31%, LibDems 12%, UKIP 5%, others 10% or such like?
I seem to remember 38/27. Which of course is absolute rubbish in relation to the GE. I don't know why anyone is paying any attention at all to his NEV numbers.
Prof Curtice would be the first to say that you can't read directly across from locals to the General in terms of estimating vote shares.
I don't think anyone expects the LDs to get 18% at the GE. 15% might be possible. The question is whether you allocate those 3 percentage points to the Tories or split them evenly between Con and Lab (as a starting point).
I don't think anyone expects the LDs to get 18% at the GE. 15% might be possible. The question is whether you allocate those 3 percentage points to the Tories or split it between them and Lab.
I think its turnout related. The Lib Dem vote that comes out in the locals heads out in the GE. There are alot of relatively disinterested people that will come out and vote for the government on June 8th.
Polling expert John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said that if the council results were reflected at next month's general election, Theresa May would win a bigger majority - but probably not enough to get the landslide she was hoping for. The 11-point Tory lead over Labour in the projected national share is smaller than their 17% average lead in recent opinion polls, he added, but he cautioned against reading too much into the projections.
Polling expert John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said that if the council results were reflected at next month's general election, Theresa May would win a bigger majority - but probably not enough to get the landslide she was hoping for. The 11-point Tory lead over Labour in the projected national share is smaller than their 17% average lead in recent opinion polls, he added, but he cautioned against reading too much into the projections.
If you keep saying it you might even convince yourself.
That's about the worst result for the country....big majority for Tories and good enough for Labour that the Supreme leader can claim he is on the right path and should carry on.
Labour aren't going to score 30%. They won't disappear completely down the tubes, but they aren't going to do that well. Somewhere closer to 25%.
EdM got a little less than 31% last time, and since then they'll have been bleeding a lot of votes to practically all of the other parties. The only team I can see them potentially squeezing for votes in this election are the Greens, but there aren't enough Greens to make enough of a difference.
Polling expert John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said that if the council results were reflected at next month's general election, Theresa May would win a bigger majority - but probably not enough to get the landslide she was hoping for. The 11-point Tory lead over Labour in the projected national share is smaller than their 17% average lead in recent opinion polls, he added, but he cautioned against reading too much into the projections.
The "if" is massive, and he more or less rejects it in his final sentence.
Le Pen is at 10\1 at Betfair, so Ladbrokes are making free money from the gigantic crowds of bettors who are beating on their door to place stakes on her at 6\1.
Love this headline from the BBC: "French election: Macron hack details 'must not be spread'". That's right. Whatever you do, do NOT think of an elephant. Absolutely do not think of a large grey mammal with a trunk. Do not think of a banker politician either, or wonder what the hacked documents may reveal. Do not even think of wondering about offshore money. Macron is an extremely innocent victim. He is a nice man. You are not in a psychology experiment. This is not voter suppression. It is not psychological warfare.
People wearing masks stormed Macron's office in Lyons and threw around false banknotes with his face on. So I read in Russian-owned Sputnik News anyway.
Who knows what voteshare Le Pen will get? Who knows what will happen by tomorrow morning?
35-40%. Everyone currently alive on the planet will be 14 hours older. There are your answers.
Ooh, you sarky sod! Meanwhile François Hollande has promised a response to the hacking "attack". Of course none of this will have any effect on what anyone does tomorrow, because only what pollsters put on their graphs is true. And it's wrong to wonder what else might happen in the near future, because media companies, whether participatorily minded or otherwise, are still in the present, as are we all.
Blyth Valley would surely be the shock of the night, though I had it very close on my model. Will Ronnie Campbell's personal vote be enough to stem the wwc Tory tsunami ? I am on here for the pennies Paddy allowed me at 4-1,
My analogy for the celebrations over Le Pen getting 40%ish would be a man finding out his wife is having an affair, and after much umming and ahhing she decides that she favours him 60/40 over the other bloke
Polling expert John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said that if the council results were reflected at next month's general election, Theresa May would win a bigger majority - but probably not enough to get the landslide she was hoping for. The 11-point Tory lead over Labour in the projected national share is smaller than their 17% average lead in recent opinion polls, he added, but he cautioned against reading too much into the projections.
If you keep saying it you might even convince yourself.
That's about the worst result for the country....big majority for Tories and good enough for Labour that the Supreme leader can claim he is on the right path and should carry on.
Labour aren't going to score 30%. They won't disappear completely down the tubes, but they aren't going to do that well. Somewhere closer to 25%.
EdM got a little less than 31% last time, and since then they'll have been bleeding a lot of votes to practically all of the other parties. The only team I can see them potentially squeezing for votes in this election are the Greens, but there aren't enough Greens to make enough of a difference.
Labour might well win 30%, and much good it will do them if the Tories are close to 50%.
Le Pen is at 10\1 at Betfair, so Ladbrokes are making free money from the gigantic crowds of bettors who are beating on their door to place stakes on her at 6\1.
Love this headline from the BBC: "French election: Macron hack details 'must not be spread'". That's right. Whatever you do, do NOT think of an elephant. Absolutely do not think of a large grey mammal with a trunk. Do not think of a banker politician either, or wonder what the hacked documents may reveal. Do not even think of wondering about offshore money. Macron is an extremely innocent victim. He is a nice man. You are not in a psychology experiment. This is not voter suppression. It is not psychological warfare.
People wearing masks stormed Macron's office in Lyons and threw around false banknotes with his face on. So I read in Russian-owned Sputnik News anyway.
Who knows what voteshare Le Pen will get? Who knows what will happen by tomorrow morning?
35-40%. Everyone currently alive on the planet will be 14 hours older. There are your answers.
Ooh, you sarky sod! Meanwhile François Hollande has promised a response to the hacking "attack". Of course none of this will have any effect on what anyone does tomorrow, because only what pollsters put on their graphs is true. And it's wrong to wonder what else might happen in the near future, because media companies, whether participatorily minded or otherwise, are still in the present, as are we all.
My analogy for the celebrations over Le Pen getting 40%ish would be a man finding out his wife is having an affair, and after much umming and ahhing she decides that she favours him 60/40 over the other bloke
No cause for celebration
More interesting is the impact at legislative level. If FN is becoming more transfer-friendly, it can begin winning significant representation in non-PR elections.
I am coming to the view - reluctantly as a member of several years standing - that the labour party needs to die completely. Only complete, wholesale, obliteration will allow something new to be created in its place. At the moment the labour party don't even qualify as an opposition. They fail in carrying out the most basic tasks of parliamentary process. They don't know what they stand for, other than vague polemical slogans and discredited promises and commitments. They should be completely rejected by the electorate. They deserve the coming obliteration.
I think there's a lot in what you say but haven't entirely given up hope for a couple of reasons. As I said, one of the problems is that up until now it's been an asymmetric war - while the hardcore Corbynistas have been free to demonise the PLP and those who dissent because essentially, aggro helps them with their cause - controlling Labour - it doesn't help the rest of us with ours of getting into government. Major party figures can't come out and say how vile they think Corbyn and his politics are because doing so will a) harm the party and b) probably convince some that it's not his fault but his detractors. That ends after the election - if you're the leader who nearly wiped out the party people will call a spade a spade and explain why they're doing so. Secondly, the threat of a split will hopefully focus minds. The reason it hasn't happened already is due to residual loyalty that in the short-term it's mutually assured destruction. Eventually those two factors change - Labour MPs are loyal to Labour not the Jeremy Corbyn's vanity party and so if the change becomes permanent they'll flip. Secondly, if destruction is on the horizon anyway you might as well go out fighting for your beliefs. In turn, that may focus minds in the unions if they face the prospect of no longer having any influence within a major political party. Len McCluskey is many things, but he's not thick or happy to lose power and influence.
What probably needs to happen is a kill or cure leadership election - have someone stand on the platform of reforming the party from top to bottom and allow £3ers in again with a beefed up 'Saving Labour' campaign. Lose, and it's time for a new party - probably based around Labour's current metro mayors and talking a lot about regional investment. With momentum and major figures signed up, it could quite easily swallow up the Lib Dems given their most effective figures are either tainted by coalition or past it.
If I were to be part of a minor regional party, or any party for that matter, and become parish councillor under that banner, would this be a barrier to changing party later down the line?
Don't defections happen quite regularly in parish councils, to the point that they're not really news (same as most things for parish councils to be fair).
No, as it happens. Since parish councils don't have political groups, as such, the concept of defection doesn't really apply.
I find that a slightly odd point. People can and do stand for election to parish councils under party political labels, even though once on the council they don't act as political group.
I thought the question was about being told he wouldn't get on the parish council unless he stood for a particular party, and he was thinking that later on he might want to belong to a different party, and would he be able to change. to which the answer is yes. But better not to join a party you don't necessarily agree with in the first place. the country is littered with councillors who only joined the Tories because they thought that was the only way to get elected. And that is NOT a joke, or made-up. There are several of them on my local unitary authority, self-confessed.
I'm interested in getting involved in a small way in local politics and I'm on the centre left. The local Labour unitary councillors have been councillors for ever. I'd rather run for a minor party and lose than never get a shot at running within the Labour machine..but I don't want to close doors for the future. It doesn't sound like changing parties would be a problem later down the line, though.
In fact I would go so far as she thinks she is an underdog.
Dronfield was a complete disaster for her in the locals.
I presume Tories are favorites in NE Derbyshire
1-16, and that isn't wrong imo when Tories are getting over 2000 votes in Eckington and Killamarsh ward for the CCs.
NE Derbyshire is no.18 on the Tory target list, with a 3.9% Labour majority and a huge reservoir of Ukip votes. It would be very surprising indeed if it didn't go over to the Tories.
After the election, even if Labour gets to the high twenties the house is burnt down anyway. I'd expect a lot of Labour people will go public with what they actually think about people like Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and the destruction they wreak when allowed to organise anything other than a protest.
snip I am coming to the view - reluctantly as a member of several years standing - that the labour party needs to die completely. Only complete, wholesale, obliteration will allow something new to be created in its place. At the moment the labour party don't even qualify as an opposition. They fail in carrying out the most basic tasks of parliamentary process. They don't know what they stand for, other than vague polemical slogans and discredited promises and commitments. They should be completely rejected by the electorate. They deserve the coming obliteration.
+100
Being tied to the unions makes no sense in a world where union membership is now chosen by a minority and continues to decline.
Being linked to the co-operative movement makes no sense when a minority of co-op members vote Labour.
Fighting the class war of the 1920/30s makes no sense when class has declining relevance to the politics of the 21st century.
Trying to assemble a big tent coalition of blue collar workers, ethnic minorities and middle class guardian readers makes no sense when the interests of these constituencies are in such sharp conflict.
Seeing politics in terms of collectivism and solidarity makes no sense in a century where people increasingly value individualism and self-expression.
These are all intractable problems. It is a completely unworkable coalition. If it was all about winning, Labour could quite easily have campaigned to leave the EU on the basis of ending uncontrolled immigration. They would now be in a really strong position. But of course that would go against every instinct and belief of 90% of their members and MP's. We end up with Corbyn simply offering his bizarre opinions (ie he wants to leave the EU but continue with free movement anyway) which is just worst of all worlds.
It is sort of a zombie party that just has a massive GOTV operation, party infrastructure and somehow maintains its parliamentary platform. Maybe Corbyn becoming is a good thing, in that he is so odious, toxic and unelectable that it forces a political reallignment.
Seems too much to hope for but must be a fair chance that 51% is the Con vote share.
I posted yesterday that the Local results could give Con a boost - a whole day of good publicity for Con and bad for Lab can influence floating voters - gives a strong sense of the way the wind is blowing and people like to be with the winner.
I'm not sure that the 51% is Tory vote share. Would that be "intriguing"? I'm assuming that by "intriguing", Joe means something a bit more obscure.
Support for - or against - Brexit?
I think unlikely as there are always some don't knows - and they report don't knows re Brexit unlike voting intention - for / against Brexit is normally approx 45%.
Seems too much to hope for but must be a fair chance that 51% is the Con vote share.
I posted yesterday that the Local results could give Con a boost - a whole day of good publicity for Con and bad for Lab can influence floating voters - gives a strong sense of the way the wind is blowing and people like to be with the winner.
I imagine much/most of the groundwork would have been done before yesterday.
Seems too much to hope for but must be a fair chance that 51% is the Con vote share.
I posted yesterday that the Local results could give Con a boost - a whole day of good publicity for Con and bad for Lab can influence floating voters - gives a strong sense of the way the wind is blowing and people like to be with the winner.
I imagine much/most of the groundwork would have been done before yesterday.
Last week's YouGov Sunday Times fieldwork was Thur + Fri.
Well Manchester has The Village, which is paradise for the LGBT community, and anyone who loves a good night out, they have a bar called Poptastic, which plays nothing but (cheesy) 80s/90s pop.
Unsurprisingly I've spent a lot of my life in Poptastic.
I can understand why the Russians think it is a place of debauchery.
Does anyone know why the poor PR souls don't rail against the word 'majority' when used in the sense of a lead in a seat under FPTP, the way they do against the word 'post' (which is surely just used as a metaphor for a point in time - 10pm on polling day)
I guess because majority isn't used a description for the flawed voting system itself.
That is a tautology. All voting systems are flawed (Arrow's theorem).
Does anyone know why the poor PR souls don't rail against the word 'majority' when used in the sense of a lead in a seat under FPTP, the way they do against the word 'post' (which is surely just used as a metaphor for a point in time - 10pm on polling day)
I guess because majority isn't used a description for the flawed voting system itself.
That is a tautology. All voting systems are flawed (Arrow's theorem).
Bonkers...made comments 2 years ago, now the plod investigating.
Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments
Officers are understood to be examining whether the British comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.
Does anyone know why the poor PR souls don't rail against the word 'majority' when used in the sense of a lead in a seat under FPTP, the way they do against the word 'post' (which is surely just used as a metaphor for a point in time - 10pm on polling day)
I guess because majority isn't used a description for the flawed voting system itself.
That is a tautology. All voting systems are flawed (Arrow's theorem).
Does anyone know why the poor PR souls don't rail against the word 'majority' when used in the sense of a lead in a seat under FPTP, the way they do against the word 'post' (which is surely just used as a metaphor for a point in time - 10pm on polling day)
I guess because majority isn't used a description for the flawed voting system itself.
That is a tautology. All voting systems are flawed (Arrow's theorem).
SNIP Len McCluskey is many things, but he's not thick or happy to lose power and influence.
What probably needs to happen is a kill or cure leadership election - have someone stand on the platform of reforming the party from top to bottom and allow £3ers in again with a beefed up 'Saving Labour' campaign. Lose, and it's time for a new party - probably based around Labour's current metro mayors and talking a lot about regional investment. With momentum and major figures signed up, it could quite easily swallow up the Lib Dems given their most effective figures are either tainted by coalition or past it.
Good luck with that. Sorry to be a sore pessimist but I think there are too many structural problems with the membership. If you have signed up half a million ideological keyboard zealots, which (numerically at least) is what the labour party now is, I don't see any way for the pragmatic/ moderate element to regain control of the party. The problems are well known. Most of the Corbynistas don't turn up to meetings and don't get involved with campaigning. They are lemmings. They are turkeys who vote for Christmas. They will blame the mainstream media and the moderates for any adverse electoral outcomes. They talk about this being a minor setback in a very long game. They are no different to 2015 UKIP voters who voted UKIP in marginal tory/labour constituencies. They are like religious fundamentalists albeit with a left wing tunnel vision worldview.
An electoral wipeout will end all this, and the labour brand - so tarnished already by Blair, Iraq, Mandelson and Corbyn will simply be collateral damage. So be it. At some point the greater public interest has to be in having a functioning representative democracy.
Locals and GE shares can change dramatically even when taking place within a short space of each other, everyone knows this.
That's the problem - they don't know. A sizeable amount of people here think they are the same thing.
Firstly;
Turnout was ~half of what it will be in the GE.
The assumption is the other ~half - who will vote, who didn't vote - won't vote differently to the ~half who did vote.
I don't think that's correct.
I think the ~half who didn't vote, who will vote - will vote differently to the ~half who did vote, who will vote again.
Secondly;
It's assuming the ~half who did vote will actually vote - and vote for the same parties when they vote again after the national campaign.
It isn't clear to me that that is the case, although taking the national LE votes in aggregate (and excluding the indys) - it probably isn't far off.
Treating the locals as a kind of national opinion poll is futile psephowanking. You're asking a different question (which party councillor do you want to vote for?) to a sub-selectorate of GE voters.
National GE %ages can't be inferred from LE results.
If Labour are on 30 that's the same as 2015. Given the unique circumstances of the election that's not bad. Corbyn would have an argument to stay.
Labour polled 31.2% in 2015.
Not bad? 30% for Corbyn at a GE would be hailed as a triumph by the far left (obviously not by the moderates or anyone who lives in the real world). I would be stunned if they get 30%.
Question - let's assume for a moment the polls are overstating Labour and understating the Lib Dems. Would it be possible for this to create an even greater Tory majority?
I'm thinking of a 1987 style result (which had Labour on 27% and the SDP on 26%). Assuming that most of the Lib Dems would be Labour > Lib switchers, wouldn't this effectively allow the Tories to 'come through the middle' in a lot of seats?
I assume that the Labour vote is extremely concentrated in core areas, but if the Lib Dems are doing well nationally, it will probably be among hardcore remainers who are reasonably distributed around the country, albeit strongest in middle class and metropolitan areas.
In 1987 Labour polled 31.8% with the Alliance - not SDP - on just over 23%.
Blyth Valley would surely be the shock of the night, though I had it very close on my model. Will Ronnie Campbell's personal vote be enough to stem the wwc Tory tsunami ? I am on here for the pennies Paddy allowed me at 4-1,
That's about the worst result for the country....big majority for Tories and good enough for Labour that the Supreme leader can claim he is on the right path and should carry on.
Labour aren't going to score 30%. They won't disappear completely down the tubes, but they aren't going to do that well. Somewhere closer to 25%.
EdM got a little less than 31% last time, and since then they'll have been bleeding a lot of votes to practically all of the other parties. The only team I can see them potentially squeezing for votes in this election are the Greens, but there aren't enough Greens to make enough of a difference.
I've had a look at the use of second preferences in this week's mayoral elections. Here are the percentages for the number of second preferences used as a percentage of votes eliminated in the first round:
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough - 42.6% Greater Manchester - N/A Liverpool City Region - N/A Tees Valley - 67.7% West of England - 40.0% West Midlands - 52.6%
The 40% achieved in the West of England was actually pretty good given that it wasn't clear who was going to make the final two. The 67.7% achieved in Tees Valley was very high, but perhaps this was due to a particularly low turnout (21.3%) meaning that a greater share of the vote came from the more politically engaged.
For comparison, here are the figure for the London mayoral elections:
London 2000 - 35.7% London 2004 - 42.3% London 2008 - 54.3% London 2012 - 53.4% London 2016 - 45.7%
The 35.7% in 2000 would suggest that some weren't aware of the second preference vote, but it might also reflect the fact that Labour (Frank Dobson) didn't make the final two so perhaps more second preferences were wasted on him. The higher figures in 2008 and 2012 probably reflect the fact that people feel more strongly about Boris and Ken that Zac and Sadiq.
one does miss tim on here, not a single murmur of dissent about Lynton Crosby.......
I think tim would struggle on here these days. His modus operandi - which he did with aplomb - was to taunt Tories continuously about how hapless their leadership was. Difficult to sustain that now when a May three-figure political supernova is imminent.
The two polls out tonight are implying a swing of about 4.5% from Lab to Con. Applied universally that would give Labour circa 195 seats - though they might just hit 200 by picking up a few from the SNP.
Labour are overstated. Does anyone really believe one in three will vote for Corbyn's party, with henchmen like McDonnell and Milne. I don't
What if we're wrong and Corbyn really is picking up votes from the disenfranchised and disillusioned?
What if against all wisdom, there is a hardcore of people - old lefties set in their ways and young anti-capitalist types - who are boosting Corbyn's share of the vote? Add that to Labour's client vote of public sector types and is 31% impossible?
We're seeing these figures again and again and again.
It won't help him in the marginals, but it could explain the national share of vote holding up.
I can't believe it, but we'd be fools to discount the possibility entirely.
Labour might hit 29%. (Which opinion polls would have as 30%)
Think about it - UKIP will collapse to around 3% I think since they won't run candidates. Lib Dems will add around half the vote share back to end up ~ 12%. The Greens might be eaten into a bit by Labour, perhaps end up with ~ 2%.
UKIP + LD + Green + Tory + Labour must come to 92% or so I think.
3+12+2+29 which would mean 46% for the Tories. (Equiv to a polling score of ~47)
So 2-3-12-29-46 could be the final result.
That'd mean a 17 pt lead but the Labour vote would be holding up where it needs to least - particularly in terms of stemming the Tory tide.
The two polls out tonight are implying a swing of about 4.5% from Lab to Con. Applied universally that would give Labour circa 195 seats - though they might just hit 200 by picking up a few from the SNP.
That seems about the upper edge of their hopes. If they hit 200, Corbyn's going nowhere.
Comments
I am on here for the pennies Paddy allowed me at 4-1,
@Typo tipped it up at 6s.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39810488
http://www.libdems.org.uk/nhs-plan?utm_campaign=health_1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=libdems
Polling expert John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said that if the council results were reflected at next month's general election, Theresa May would win a bigger majority - but probably not enough to get the landslide she was hoping for.
The 11-point Tory lead over Labour in the projected national share is smaller than their 17% average lead in recent opinion polls, he added, but he cautioned against reading too much into the projections.
EdM got a little less than 31% last time, and since then they'll have been bleeding a lot of votes to practically all of the other parties. The only team I can see them potentially squeezing for votes in this election are the Greens, but there aren't enough Greens to make enough of a difference.
I'll repost what you've just written:
Polling expert John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said that if the council results were reflected at next month's general election, Theresa May would win a bigger majority - but probably not enough to get the landslide she was hoping for.
The 11-point Tory lead over Labour in the projected national share is smaller than their 17% average lead in recent opinion polls, he added, but he cautioned against reading too much into the projections.
The "if" is massive, and he more or less rejects it in his final sentence.
With Lavery's prominence those stories about his financial transactions are likely to get an airing.
No cause for celebration
You talking to Prof Curtice?
Didn't know he posted on here.
She thinks so too.
In fact I would go so far as she thinks she is an underdog.
Dronfield was a complete disaster for her in the locals.
I presume Tories are favorites in NE Derbyshire
It doesn't sound like changing parties would be a problem later down the line, though.
Was once Lab landslide territory.
15.7% lab/Con swing from 2013.
I think the Locals may have led to fewer polls this week than would otherwise have been the case.
It is sort of a zombie party that just has a massive GOTV operation, party infrastructure and somehow maintains its parliamentary platform. Maybe Corbyn becoming is a good thing, in that he is so odious, toxic and unelectable that it forces a political reallignment.
I posted yesterday that the Local results could give Con a boost - a whole day of good publicity for Con and bad for Lab can influence floating voters - gives a strong sense of the way the wind is blowing and people like to be with the winner.
Tories 1/4 with Bet365
Tories 1/5 SkyBet, PaddyPower, BetFair
Tories 2/7 WilliamHill, Ladbrokes, Coral
Labour 11/4 Bet365, SkyBet
Labour 5/2 WilliamHill, Ladbrokes, Coral
Labour 3/1 PaddyPower, BetFair
Unsurprisingly I've spent a lot of my life in Poptastic.
I can understand why the Russians think it is a place of debauchery.
Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments
Officers are understood to be examining whether the British comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39830447
2011 referendum:
No 2 AV 68%
Yes 2 AV 32%
Sorry to be a sore pessimist but I think there are too many structural problems with the membership. If you have signed up half a million ideological keyboard zealots, which (numerically at least) is what the labour party now is, I don't see any way for the pragmatic/ moderate element to regain control of the party. The problems are well known. Most of the Corbynistas don't turn up to meetings and don't get involved with campaigning. They are lemmings. They are turkeys who vote for Christmas. They will blame the mainstream media and the moderates for any adverse electoral outcomes. They talk about this being a minor setback in a very long game. They are no different to 2015 UKIP voters who voted UKIP in marginal tory/labour constituencies. They are like religious fundamentalists albeit with a left wing tunnel vision worldview.
An electoral wipeout will end all this, and the labour brand - so tarnished already by Blair, Iraq, Mandelson and Corbyn will simply be collateral damage. So be it. At some point the greater public interest has to be in having a functioning representative democracy.
W/e 23rd April 19.4
W/e 30th April 18.2
Just noticed the graphics for the Hartlepool game
HarDon
Turnout was ~half of what it will be in the GE.
The assumption is the other ~half - who will vote, who didn't vote - won't vote differently to the ~half who did vote.
I don't think that's correct.
I think the ~half who didn't vote, who will vote - will vote differently to the ~half who did vote, who will vote again.
Secondly;
It's assuming the ~half who did vote will actually vote - and vote for the same parties when they vote again after the national campaign.
It isn't clear to me that that is the case, although taking the national LE votes in aggregate (and excluding the indys) - it probably isn't far off.
Treating the locals as a kind of national opinion poll is futile psephowanking. You're asking a different question (which party councillor do you want to vote for?) to a sub-selectorate of GE voters.
National GE %ages can't be inferred from LE results.
10.2 30th April
9.6 so far this week
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/tories-course-gain-biggest-landslide-election-victory-seen-fifty/
CON 46 (+4), LAB 31 (nc), LD9 (-1), UKIP 8 (nc)
8.6, 6.7, 6.4
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough - 42.6%
Greater Manchester - N/A
Liverpool City Region - N/A
Tees Valley - 67.7%
West of England - 40.0%
West Midlands - 52.6%
The 40% achieved in the West of England was actually pretty good given that it wasn't clear who was going to make the final two. The 67.7% achieved in Tees Valley was very high, but perhaps this was due to a particularly low turnout (21.3%) meaning that a greater share of the vote came from the more politically engaged.
For comparison, here are the figure for the London mayoral elections:
London 2000 - 35.7%
London 2004 - 42.3%
London 2008 - 54.3%
London 2012 - 53.4%
London 2016 - 45.7%
The 35.7% in 2000 would suggest that some weren't aware of the second preference vote, but it might also reflect the fact that Labour (Frank Dobson) didn't make the final two so perhaps more second preferences were wasted on him. The higher figures in 2008 and 2012 probably reflect the fact that people feel more strongly about Boris and Ken that Zac and Sadiq.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/860927397801099264
When do nominations close? Thursday?
Edit: which is Thursday..
What if against all wisdom, there is a hardcore of people - old lefties set in their ways and young anti-capitalist types - who are boosting Corbyn's share of the vote? Add that to Labour's client vote of public sector types and is 31% impossible?
We're seeing these figures again and again and again.
It won't help him in the marginals, but it could explain the national share of vote holding up.
I can't believe it, but we'd be fools to discount the possibility entirely.
Think about it - UKIP will collapse to around 3% I think since they won't run candidates.
Lib Dems will add around half the vote share back to end up ~ 12%.
The Greens might be eaten into a bit by Labour, perhaps end up with ~ 2%.
UKIP + LD + Green + Tory + Labour must come to 92% or so I think.
3+12+2+29 which would mean 46% for the Tories. (Equiv to a polling score of ~47)
So 2-3-12-29-46 could be the final result.
That'd mean a 17 pt lead but the Labour vote would be holding up where it needs to least - particularly in terms of stemming the Tory tide.
we get, C 259, Lab 269.
However, Labour are massacred thereafter. 55+ C 315, Lab 99.
The subsets are hilarious. Wales Con 29, Lab 14, PC 4. In fact, Con 29 out of 62.
At this rate, they will win every seat in Wales!