If so the swing will be nearer 5% than the 7.5% on Alastair's central projection.
But Scotland was a more remainy area which would suggest less of a Lab to Tory swing than Alistair's central projection, so a 5% swing would probably be predicted.
The swing in Scotland that matters is Lab/SNP because the SNP currently hold pretty much all the seats, certainly the ones that Labour are looking at recovering. As the SNP is also a remain party I don't think that explains the result. This may indeed make Scotland different but those betting on the bands should be aware that there is a chance of a small handful of Labour MPs from north of the border being added in. Its one of the reasons I am nervous about 170.
We need a Scotland GE poll. I suspect the SNP will do better in the GE than the locals.
MY current working theory on Holyrood and Council elections is differential turnout. Both saw big rises in turnout compared to last time with the SNP vote share holding steady but the Tories rising substantially s that suggests to me SNP voters stayed home (because both prior elections occured pre-2014).
They may or may not stay at home for the GE. I don't know.
If so the swing will be nearer 5% than the 7.5% on Alastair's central projection.
But Scotland was a more remainy area which would suggest less of a Lab to Tory swing than Alistair's central projection, so a 5% swing would probably be predicted.
The swing in Scotland that matters is Lab/SNP because the SNP currently hold pretty much all the seats, certainly the ones that Labour are looking at recovering. As the SNP is also a remain party I don't think that explains the result. This may indeed make Scotland different but those betting on the bands should be aware that there is a chance of a small handful of Labour MPs from north of the border being added in. Its one of the reasons I am nervous about 170.
We need a Scotland GE poll. I suspect the SNP will do better in the GE than the locals.
MY current working theory on Holyrood and Council elections is differential turnout. Both saw big rises in turnout compared to last time with the SNP vote share holding steady but the Tories rising substantially s that suggests to me SNP voters stayed home (because both prior elections occured pre-2014).
They may or may not stay at home for the GE. I don't know.
More importantly have you had a tickle on the Slabbers in East Lothian at 10-1 with 365 ?
Too high for the SNP: I reckon they'll lose three seats to the Libs and Labs before we even get to any Tory gains.
A more likely Scottish result is SNP 47, down 11. With LD +2, Lab +1, and Con +6.
That seems right to me.
(edit per previous poster: Median 9 seat loss for the SNP)
I think the SNP will struggle to hold 40 seats.
The upside is higher for the Conservatives than the LDs and Labour. The key is the degree to which supporters of those parties are willing to vote tactically for the Tories. Something remarkable happened at the 2016 Holyrood election in Edinburgh where the SNP lost 3 out of 7 seats purely as a result of tactical voting.
The upside is higher for the Conservatives than the LDs and Labour. The key is the degree to which supporters of those parties are willing to vote tactically for the Tories. Something remarkable happened at the 2016 Holyrood election in Edinburgh where the SNP lost 3 out of 7 seats purely as a result of tactical voting.
I say again, look at the Tory campaign slogan
"Leading Scotland's Fightback"
Against?
It can only be the SNP. Scotland fighting back against the SNP.
Tories to get over 50% of the vote a good bet at 3/1?
This poll has Tories unweighted at 51 and is upgrading Lab and LD (So I read) UKIP are being over estimated as they aren't standing in lots of seats
If UKIP stand in only 100 seats - as has been suggested - leaving most Tory MPs a clear run, that has huge implications for the overall Tory vote and the seat markets. 50% in GB must be possible.
Mr. Eagles, no Betfair (Sportsbook) Don Valley offering, Ladbrokes has Con 4.5. Worth a shot?
Because I know Aaron and I'll be most likely campaigning a lot for him in Don Valley, I'm not going to to be giving a running commentary on the odds, lest other people might take them out of context.
Jezza is either taking the piss now or the labour private polling has picked up that karl Marx is secretly dead popular with the public.
Whilst plainly a dumb thing to say politically, he did also mention David Ricardo and Adam Smith. And I think most economists would put Marx up there as highly influential. The man wasn't some thick Dave Spart-figure, yelling leftie slogans... he was a serious economist who had novel and well thought-through ideas, and who quite clearly influenced the economic debate. None of that is to say he was right.
His greatest contribution was to produce a compelling social and economic theory that identified the economic base as the determining force of human affairs rather than ideas, or ideology, which had previously been the widely prevailing Hegelian view. This is the sense in which it often said that 'Marx turned Hegel on his head'.
To the best of my knowledge this aspect of his thinking still prevails, although with some qualification. His admirer Max Weber, for example, argued for a more reciprocal relationship between the ideological superstructure and the economic base, and I think that would be the orthodox view now, but the original model still holds good, if only as a standard against which to examine and test more qualified theories and the complexities of societies which have moved on a bit since Marx himself moved on to Highgate Cemetery.
PB may not be the ideal place to start a symposium on the various contributions of KM to modern economic theory, but if we are going to do so, let's start from what he actually wrote, and not the Daily Mail version.
Too high for the SNP: I reckon they'll lose three seats to the Libs and Labs before we even get to any Tory gains.
A more likely Scottish result is SNP 47, down 11. With LD +2, Lab +1, and Con +6.
That seems right to me.
(edit per previous poster: Median 9 seat loss for the SNP)
I think the SNP will struggle to hold 40 seats.
The upside is higher for the Conservatives than the LDs and Labour. The key is the degree to which supporters of those parties are willing to vote tactically for the Tories. Something remarkable happened at the 2016 Holyrood election in Edinburgh where the SNP lost 3 out of 7 seats purely as a result of tactical voting.
I will not be surprised if Labour and the Tories end up on 6 each with the LDs on 3or4.
If so the swing will be nearer 5% than the 7.5% on Alastair's central projection.
But Scotland was a more remainy area which would suggest less of a Lab to Tory swing than Alistair's central projection, so a 5% swing would probably be predicted.
The swing in Scotland that matters is Lab/SNP because the SNP currently hold pretty much all the seats, certainly the ones that Labour are looking at recovering. As the SNP is also a remain party I don't think that explains the result. This may indeed make Scotland different but those betting on the bands should be aware that there is a chance of a small handful of Labour MPs from north of the border being added in. Its one of the reasons I am nervous about 170.
We need a Scotland GE poll. I suspect the SNP will do better in the GE than the locals.
I think the SNP are still pretty much set to hit c.43-45%.
As SCON move into a similar % share as the infamous Jim Murphy - I'm seeing some very similar MSN over exuberance from back then - plus the usual PB.com calls that we've passed "Peak SNP" etc etc.
Already we have some unseemly squabbles breaking out between SCON & SLAB in the likes of Edinburgh South & East Ren - much of it on social media. Ruth and SCON appear to have caught a case of "decapitationitis" as they publicly target high profile SNP scalps.
The SNP will defend aggressively - expect some pretty hard hitting attack ads - SCON & SLAB will see their loose words used against them.
The polls overstated the SNP and understated the Tories in the Holyrood elections last year. Do you think they'll be right this time?
Low turnout overlaid with the SCON demographic more likely to vote - could well explain a fair bit of the discrepancy with the polls. If turnout is again c.70% the polls should be accurate as they were for Scotland in GE 2015.
Labour was also understated for Holyrood.
?
Final Panelbase, YouGov and Survation Constituency polls were 21, 22 and 23 respectively.
They got 22.6
On the list the final polls were 19,19 & 22 for Labour. Labour got 19.1
Too high for the SNP: I reckon they'll lose three seats to the Libs and Labs before we even get to any Tory gains.
A more likely Scottish result is SNP 47, down 11. With LD +2, Lab +1, and Con +6.
That seems right to me.
(edit per previous poster: Median 9 seat loss for the SNP)
I think the SNP will struggle to hold 40 seats.
The upside is higher for the Conservatives than the LDs and Labour. The key is the degree to which supporters of those parties are willing to vote tactically for the Tories. Something remarkable happened at the 2016 Holyrood election in Edinburgh where the SNP lost 3 out of 7 seats purely as a result of tactical voting.
I will not be surprised if Labour and the Tories end up on 6 each with the LDs on 3or4.
I would be, especially Labour. 10-1 East Lothian is still huge regardless.
Too high for the SNP: I reckon they'll lose three seats to the Libs and Labs before we even get to any Tory gains.
A more likely Scottish result is SNP 47, down 11. With LD +2, Lab +1, and Con +6.
That seems right to me.
(edit per previous poster: Median 9 seat loss for the SNP)
I think the SNP will struggle to hold 40 seats.
The upside is higher for the Conservatives than the LDs and Labour. The key is the degree to which supporters of those parties are willing to vote tactically for the Tories. Something remarkable happened at the 2016 Holyrood election in Edinburgh where the SNP lost 3 out of 7 seats purely as a result of tactical voting.
I will not be surprised if Labour and the Tories end up on 6 each with the LDs on 3or4.
I would be, especially Labour. 10-1 East Lothian is still huge regardless.
PB may not be the ideal place to start a symposium on the various contributions of KM to modern economic theory, but if we are going to do so, let's start from what he actually wrote, and not the Daily Mail version.
Unfortunately, Marxists have given Marx a bad name.
How can BBC do a live Question Time on June 8th at 8.30 to 9.30 when broadcasters are suposedly banned from talking anything to do with polling or campaigning?
If so the swing will be nearer 5% than the 7.5% on Alastair's central projection.
But Scotland was a more remainy area which would suggest less of a Lab to Tory swing than Alistair's central projection, so a 5% swing would probably be predicted.
The swing in Scotland that matters is Lab/SNP because the SNP currently hold pretty much all the seats, certainly the ones that Labour are looking at recovering. As the SNP is also a remain party I don't think that explains the result. This may indeed make Scotland different but those betting on the bands should be aware that there is a chance of a small handful of Labour MPs from north of the border being added in. Its one of the reasons I am nervous about 170.
We need a Scotland GE poll. I suspect the SNP will do better in the GE than the locals.
I think the SNP are still pretty much set to hit c.43-45%.
As SCON move into a similar % share as the infamous Jim Murphy - I'm seeing some very similar MSN over exuberance from back then - plus the usual PB.com calls that we've passed "Peak SNP" etc etc.
Already we have some unseemly squabbles breaking out between SCON & SLAB in the likes of Edinburgh South & East Ren - much of it on social media. Ruth and SCON appear to have caught a case of "decapitationitis" as they publicly target high profile SNP scalps.
The SNP will defend aggressively - expect some pretty hard hitting attack ads - SCON & SLAB will see their loose words used against them.
The polls overstated the SNP and understated the Tories in the Holyrood elections last year. Do you think they'll be right this time?
Low turnout overlaid with the SCON demographic more likely to vote - could well explain a fair bit of the discrepancy with the polls. If turnout is again c.70% the polls should be accurate as they were for Scotland in GE 2015.
Labour was also understated for Holyrood.
?
Final Panelbase, YouGov and Survation Constituency polls were 21, 22 and 23 respectively.
They got 22.6
On the list the final polls were 19,19 & 22 for Labour. Labour got 19.1
Indeed - for the Constitueny vote Labour was understated a bit - though to a lesser extent than the Tories. For last week's elections Labour was underestimated more than the Tories.
PB may not be the ideal place to start a symposium on the various contributions of KM to modern economic theory, but if we are going to do so, let's start from what he actually wrote, and not the Daily Mail version.
Unfortunately, Marxists have given Marx a bad name.
Hence the oft quoted 'Je ne suis pas Marxiste!' which Karl is reported to have exclaimed when he saw some of the things being done in his name.
(No, I don't know why he said it in French. Maybe he was in France at the time.)
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Too high for the SNP: I reckon they'll lose three seats to the Libs and Labs before we even get to any Tory gains.
A more likely Scottish result is SNP 47, down 11. With LD +2, Lab +1, and Con +6.
That seems right to me.
(edit per previous poster: Median 9 seat loss for the SNP)
I think the SNP will struggle to hold 40 seats.
The upside is higher for the Conservatives than the LDs and Labour. The key is the degree to which supporters of those parties are willing to vote tactically for the Tories. Something remarkable happened at the 2016 Holyrood election in Edinburgh where the SNP lost 3 out of 7 seats purely as a result of tactical voting.
I will not be surprised if Labour and the Tories end up on 6 each with the LDs on 3or4.
I would be, especially Labour. 10-1 East Lothian is still huge regardless.
But Labour won East Lothian last week and in the Holyrood elections!
How can BBC do a live Question Time on June 8th at 8.30 to 9.30 when broadcasters are suposedly banned from talking anything to do with polling or campaigning?
They can't be, surely?
Edit: looks like there is one on the 9th, not the 8th.
wales opinion polll would suggest seats as follows Conservatives: 20 seats (+9) Labour: 16 seats (-9) Plaid Cymru: 3 seats (no change) Liberal Democrats: 1 seat (no change)
Huq seems to think along the right lines, and presumably would be much happier with the Lib Dems that as part of the Corbyn nightmare. May or maynot happen...
But I thought all fixated Tory expatriates like yourself wanted only to see the end of the Labour Party.
Huq seems to think along the right lines, and presumably would be much happier with the Lib Dems that as part of the Corbyn nightmare. May or maynot happen...
But I thought all fixated Tory expatriates like yourself wanted only to see the end of the Labour Party.
So you don't deny it - coalition of chaos - officially promoted by the LDs. Vote LD get Corbyn.
i a not an expat I am an immigrant from the UK living in Spain. I voted remain but I believe in democracy
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Sarah Olney, who is standing for the Lib Dems in neighbouring Richmond Park, and who was heard on the recording of the event saying: "We want Rupa to win in Ealing."
How can BBC do a live Question Time on June 8th at 8.30 to 9.30 when broadcasters are suposedly banned from talking anything to do with polling or campaigning?
They can't be, surely?
Edit: looks like there is one on the 9th, not the 8th.
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
The Liberal candidates in Huq's seats has already expressed his displeasure. If this is the policy why has Farron not owned it.
the welsh poll just seems to confirm the general pattern - UKIP voters are deserting on mass to Tories, whilst Labour, Plaid and Libs are essentially marginally down or unchanged.
PB may not be the ideal place to start a symposium on the various contributions of KM to modern economic theory, but if we are going to do so, let's start from what he actually wrote, and not the Daily Mail version.
Unfortunately, Marxists have given Marx a bad name.
Hence the oft quoted 'Je ne suis pas Marxiste!' which Karl is reported to have exclaimed when he saw some of the things being done in his name.
(No, I don't know why he said it in French. Maybe he was in France at the time.)
Who was it who said (or did anyone?): "I'm not a socialist because I love the poor; I'm a socialist because I hate the poor"?
The article makes one huge assumption and , in my opinion, it is misleading. Alastair is not the first person to do so.
For example, it is commonly believed that in Leave Labour seats , it was the Labour voters that won it for Leave. Partly correct, but no more than that.
Take a Sunderland seat. Labour 56% and Leave 60% [ I am just taking a random seat; it does not have to be Sunderland ]
My assumption is that the crossover happened like this:
Labour 56 x 35% = 19.6
Others 44 x 90% = 39.6
Total 59.2
It also does not follow that ALL the Labour leavers will go elsewhere or even one party.
If only 20% left for Tories and others, 56 x 80% = 44.8. In my opinion, enough to win comfortably.
By the way 20% leaving for the Tories, is a 10% swing. No opinion poll has given that sort of swing.
So many Northern seats with high Labour vote and high Leave vote probably will still be reasonably safe for Labour. Where Labour will be in trouble, as is normal, is where the majority is small. In other words, no different from any other election.
PB may not be the ideal place to start a symposium on the various contributions of KM to modern economic theory, but if we are going to do so, let's start from what he actually wrote, and not the Daily Mail version.
Unfortunately, Marxists have given Marx a bad name.
Hence the oft quoted 'Je ne suis pas Marxiste!' which Karl is reported to have exclaimed when he saw some of the things being done in his name.
(No, I don't know why he said it in French. Maybe he was in France at the time.)
This might explain it:
"“Je ne suis pas marxiste,” stated Marx, rather annoyed, to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, when the latter reported the doings of French “Marxists.”"
the welsh poll just seems to confirm the general pattern - UKIP voters are deserting on mass to Tories, whilst Labour, Plaid and Libs are essentially marginally down or unchanged.
in 2015 labour 37 cons 27 ukip 14 plaid 13 libs 7
now labour 35 cons 41 ukip 4 plaid 11 libs 7
Somehow they did not vote like that last Thursday. Oh, people vote differently in local elections !!!!
Picking up the discussion downthread about the left/right balance of a reduced Labour Parliamentary Labour Party, I had a look at the list of 67 Labour MPs Iain Dale reckons will lose their seats, against the MPs' nominations list for the 2015 leadership election.
Kendall and Burnham each lose about 27% of their nominations, Cooper about 32%, and Corbyn just 22%, or actually just 18% allowing for a couple who I believe nominated him just for the fun of seeing him lose.
So it does appear that proportionally more of Corbyn's people may well be protected from the Tory swing. Allow for a few more supporters he may pick up from Corbynites replacing retiring MPs, and there'll probably be over 25 of them post-GE; enough to comprise 15% of any parliamentary party (ignoring the MEPs) of 165 or fewer.
the welsh poll just seems to confirm the general pattern - UKIP voters are deserting on mass to Tories, whilst Labour, Plaid and Libs are essentially marginally down or unchanged.
in 2015 labour 37 cons 27 ukip 14 plaid 13 libs 7
now labour 35 cons 41 ukip 4 plaid 11 libs 7
Depending on how many candidates UKIP manage to stand, a chunk of that 4% should go to the Tories.
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
The Liberal candidates in Huq's seats has already expressed his displeasure. If this is the policy why has Farron not owned it.
I do not want anything interfering with the safe refuge for remainers/anti-Corbynistas/whathaveyou in ECA.
For all those put off by a) Brexit, there will be those put off by b) Jezza and as far as I'm concerned as long as a) < b) I am happy. Even if it's the same there is a fighting chance Huq will be ousted. Although it is of course far from a certainty, no matter the polls.
The article makes one huge assumption and , in my opinion, it is misleading. Alastair is not the first person to do so.
For example, it is commonly believed that in Leave Labour seats , it was the Labour voters that won it for Leave. Partly correct, but no more than that.
I tend to agree with this. That's why my model (below) is based on 2015 UKIP vote share rather than the referendum results.
I am not convinced - other than in a handful of extreme Remain or Leave seats - that the referendum result is key to differential swings, for the reasons you indicate.
However, the fate of the (presumably collapsing) UKIP vote is, and the evidence we have is that it's strongly breaking Tory whether it originally came from them or not. So I'm assuming an above average swing in seats where the UKIP vote was well above the national average, balanced by a below average swing where it was well below average. Because of the distribution of results in 2015, this tends to favour the Tories because they pull in more high-UKIP seats than they miss out on low-UKIP seats.
On a back-of-a-fag-packet basis, I'm reckoning a 5.5% (basically a 17% lead in line with recent polls) gives something like 48 gains from Labour (106 maj) on UNS, but 59 or so on UNS varied for past UKIP vote (128 majority).
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Nope. Vince has blundered and handed the Tories a dream attack line.
So now the LibDems are going to have to protest that they're not going to prop up Corbyn in a Coalition of Chaos, thereby looking even more confused and disgruntling both sides.
I'm sure this will have been posted, but it's difficult to keep up:
This poll is remarkable, and historic. It puts the Conservatives on 49%, and Labour on 27%, implying that 22-point lead. Not only is the lead an outright record for any ICM poll, but the Conservative share is a record in the Guardian/ICM series. It is only beaten by a 49.5% share that we recorded for the Sunday Mirror in May 1983, when ICM was called Marplan. Also noteworthy is the continued decline of UKIP, now measured at 6%, its lowest share from ICM since January 2013.
FWIW, I've just crunched the regional numbers from today's ICM poll via Electoral Calculus and it predicts:
Con 426 Lab 154 SNP 43 LD 8 Grn 1 NI 18
Con maj: 202
What's the average error in the polls to a General Election? Is it not normally roughly overstating Lab by 2 and understating the Tories by 2?
For a bit of fun and games, if we do that adjustment what would the result be?
That would be fun and games but I'd caution against it. The only time that Con was overstated was in 1983, so a 'shy loser' factor may be more important when the Con lead is this large.
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Nope. Vince has blundered and handed the Tories a dream attack line.
FWIW, I've just crunched the regional numbers from today's ICM poll via Electoral Calculus and it predicts:
Con 426 Lab 154 SNP 43 LD 8 Grn 1 NI 18
Con maj: 202
What's the average error in the polls to a General Election? Is it not normally roughly overstating Lab by 2 and understating the Tories by 2?
For a bit of fun and games, if we do that adjustment what would the result be?
That would be fun and games but I'd caution against it. The only time that Con was overstated was in 1983, so a 'shy loser' factor may be more important when the Con lead is this large.
The pollsters are of course already adjusting Labour up and the Tories and LibDems down to "allow" for factors such as this. Assuming they know what they are doing....
.... On a back-of-a-fag-packet basis, I'm reckoning a 5.5% (basically a 17% lead in line with recent polls) gives something like 48 gains from Labour (106 maj) on UNS, but 59 or so on UNS varied for past UKIP vote (128 majority).
The article makes one huge assumption and , in my opinion, it is misleading. Alastair is not the first person to do so.
For example, it is commonly believed that in Leave Labour seats , it was the Labour voters that won it for Leave. Partly correct, but no more than that.
Take a Sunderland seat. Labour 56% and Leave 60% [ I am just taking a random seat; it does not have to be Sunderland ]
My assumption is that the crossover happened like this:
Labour 56 x 35% = 19.6
Others 44 x 90% = 39.6
Total 59.2
It also does not follow that ALL the Labour leavers will go elsewhere or even one party.
If only 20% left for Tories and others, 56 x 80% = 44.8. In my opinion, enough to win comfortably.
By the way 20% leaving for the Tories, is a 10% swing. No opinion poll has given that sort of swing.
So many Northern seats with high Labour vote and high Leave vote probably will still be reasonably safe for Labour. Where Labour will be in trouble, as is normal, is where the majority is small. In other words, no different from any other election.
If you put YG's latest switcher numbers in with abstentions from past voters Sunderland Central becomes very very marginal.
The Tory gains from UKIP are about 3500 - but 8000 Labour supporters do not turn up. They just sit on their vote.
So now the LibDems are going to have to protest that they're not going to prop up Corbyn in a Coalition of Chaos, thereby looking even more confused and disgruntling both sides.
Well done, Vince.
In any case, the commitment is only to not join a coalition. If the Lib Dems found that they were the swing vote, they'd still have to decide whether to kick the Tories out, leading inevitably to a Labour government, or sustain the Conservatives in place. Every confidence vote, budget, Queen's Speech and so on would present that dilemma.
I think there is value in the 4-1 Labour for the Cambridge seat.After the local election results it looks like another very close Lab-Lib contest and on the ground Labour is very strong with a good constituency MP who may well get a bit of an incumbency bonus.
So now the LibDems are going to have to protest that they're not going to prop up Corbyn in a Coalition of Chaos, thereby looking even more confused and disgruntling both sides.
Well done, Vince.
The charge is incoherent, surely? You have the potential for a coalition if you have ld MPs and Labour MPs to coalish, but not if you have only Labour MPs because the ld voters have switched to Labour.
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Nope. Vince has blundered and handed the Tories a dream attack line.
All parties have paper candidates.
Yeah, but they don't usually come out and say "we want X-from-a-different-party" to win...
So now the LibDems are going to have to protest that they're not going to prop up Corbyn in a Coalition of Chaos, thereby looking even more confused and disgruntling both sides.
Well done, Vince.
The charge is incoherent, surely? You have the potential for a coalition if you have ld MPs and Labour MPs to coalish, but not if you have only Labour MPs because the ld voters have switched to Labour.
Not that I'm complaining, mind.
The poster is presumably aimed at Con/LD battlegrounds.
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Nope. Vince has blundered and handed the Tories a dream attack line.
All parties have paper candidates.
Each of those paper candidates, be assured, campaigns as though it is a super-marginal with everything to play for.
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Nope. Vince has blundered and handed the Tories a dream attack line.
All parties have paper candidates.
Most parties don't have former big beasts suggesting members vote against their party's candidate after the current leader has been very clear about not doing coalitions and such.
The curious saga of the Lib Dems running a more gaffe-prone campaign than Labour continues.
Comments
They may or may not stay at home for the GE. I don't know.
If you think Don Valley will fall to Con, there are better value bets elsewhere.
Good luck Aaron!
I doubt i'd vote for you if I were a local, but you're not one of those tories i'd go out of my way to vote against.
"Leading Scotland's Fightback"
Against?
It can only be the SNP. Scotland fighting back against the SNP.
Astonishing
If anyone from their campaign is paying attention BLT, I'd highly recommend All SLAB resources to head to East Lothian.
To the best of my knowledge this aspect of his thinking still prevails, although with some qualification. His admirer Max Weber, for example, argued for a more reciprocal relationship between the ideological superstructure and the economic base, and I think that would be the orthodox view now, but the original model still holds good, if only as a standard against which to examine and test more qualified theories and the complexities of societies which have moved on a bit since Marx himself moved on to Highgate Cemetery.
PB may not be the ideal place to start a symposium on the various contributions of KM to modern economic theory, but if we are going to do so, let's start from what he actually wrote, and not the Daily Mail version.
May your electoral campaigning prove more successful than your attempts to grasp classical history
Final Panelbase, YouGov and Survation Constituency polls were 21, 22 and 23 respectively.
They got 22.6
On the list the final polls were 19,19 & 22 for Labour. Labour got 19.1
Edit: I was one of my many many people campaigning.
Con 426
Lab 154
SNP 43
LD 8
Grn 1
NI 18
Con maj: 202
https://order-order.com/2017/05/08/cable-and-olney-recorded-secretly-plotting-to-help-labour/
Standards, old boy, standards.
(No, I don't know why he said it in French. Maybe he was in France at the time.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-2017-liberal-democrats-paper-candidates-constituencies-tactical-voting-vince-cable-a7724276.html
Yes, the LDs will run "paper candidates", lots of them I suspect. These will be in seats where the party is a remote third, fourth or fifth and it isn't an instruction to LD supporters to vote for any party against the Conservatives. These candidates will be in both Labour and Conservative seats.
It's a recognition the party has to concentrate its limited resources on, I would guess, 50 seats where it has any kind of chance. I doubt for instance the LDs will do much campaigning in East Ham but there's a candidate selected.
Will the Conservatives do any campaigning in East Ham - if not, isn't their candidate also a "paper candidate" and, if so, what's the problem ?
This is a desperate attempt by Guido and those of his ilk to build a story out of a non-story.
Conservatives: 41% (+1)
Labour: 35% (+5)
Plaid Cymru: 11% (-2)
Liberal Democrats: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
Others: 2% (-1)
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-05-08/labour-support-increases-but-conservatives-still-ahead/
Conservatives: 41% (+1)
Labour: 35% (+5)
Plaid Cymru: 11% (-2)
Liberal Democrats: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
Others: 2% (-1)
I don't recall seeing one.
Conservatives: 41% (+1)
Labour: 35% (+5)
Plaid Cymru: 11% (-2)
Liberal Democrats: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
Others: 2% (-1)
Edit: looks like there is one on the 9th, not the 8th.
Conservatives: 20 seats (+9)
Labour: 16 seats (-9)
Plaid Cymru: 3 seats (no change)
Liberal Democrats: 1 seat (no change)
But I thought all fixated Tory expatriates like yourself wanted only to see the end of the Labour Party.
For a bit of fun and games, if we do that adjustment what would the result be?
i a not an expat I am an immigrant from the UK living in Spain. I voted remain but I believe in democracy
Sarah Olney, who is standing for the Lib Dems in neighbouring Richmond Park, and who was heard on the recording of the event saying: "We want Rupa to win in Ealing."
in 2015
labour 37
cons 27
ukip 14
plaid 13
libs 7
now
labour 35
cons 41
ukip 4
plaid 11
libs 7
Mori - end of Feb /early March - SNP 46 Con 19 Lab 17 LD 6
Panelbase - Mid Feb - SNP 47 -Con 26 Lab 14 - LD 5
For example, it is commonly believed that in Leave Labour seats , it was the Labour voters that won it for Leave. Partly correct, but no more than that.
Take a Sunderland seat. Labour 56% and Leave 60% [ I am just taking a random seat; it does not have to be Sunderland ]
My assumption is that the crossover happened like this:
Labour 56 x 35% = 19.6
Others 44 x 90% = 39.6
Total 59.2
It also does not follow that ALL the Labour leavers will go elsewhere or even one party.
If only 20% left for Tories and others, 56 x 80% = 44.8. In my opinion, enough to win comfortably.
By the way 20% leaving for the Tories, is a 10% swing. No opinion poll has given that sort of swing.
So many Northern seats with high Labour vote and high Leave vote probably will still be reasonably safe for Labour. Where Labour will be in trouble, as is normal, is where the majority is small. In other words, no different from any other election.
"“Je ne suis pas marxiste,” stated Marx, rather annoyed, to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, when the latter reported the doings of French “Marxists.”"
Kendall and Burnham each lose about 27% of their nominations, Cooper about 32%, and Corbyn just 22%, or actually just 18% allowing for a couple who I believe nominated him just for the fun of seeing him lose.
So it does appear that proportionally more of Corbyn's people may well be protected from the Tory swing. Allow for a few more supporters he may pick up from Corbynites replacing retiring MPs, and there'll probably be over 25 of them post-GE; enough to comprise 15% of any parliamentary party (ignoring the MEPs) of 165 or fewer.
For all those put off by a) Brexit, there will be those put off by b) Jezza and as far as I'm concerned as long as a) < b) I am happy. Even if it's the same there is a fighting chance Huq will be ousted. Although it is of course far from a certainty, no matter the polls.
I am not convinced - other than in a handful of extreme Remain or Leave seats - that the referendum result is key to differential swings, for the reasons you indicate.
However, the fate of the (presumably collapsing) UKIP vote is, and the evidence we have is that it's strongly breaking Tory whether it originally came from them or not. So I'm assuming an above average swing in seats where the UKIP vote was well above the national average, balanced by a below average swing where it was well below average. Because of the distribution of results in 2015, this tends to favour the Tories because they pull in more high-UKIP seats than they miss out on low-UKIP seats.
On a back-of-a-fag-packet basis, I'm reckoning a 5.5% (basically a 17% lead in line with recent polls) gives something like 48 gains from Labour (106 maj) on UNS, but 59 or so on UNS varied for past UKIP vote (128 majority).
Well done, Vince.
Eminem.
Oh my.
This poll is remarkable, and historic. It puts the Conservatives on 49%, and Labour on 27%, implying that 22-point lead. Not only is the lead an outright record for any ICM poll, but the Conservative share is a record in the Guardian/ICM series. It is only beaten by a 49.5% share that we recorded for the Sunday Mirror in May 1983, when ICM was called Marplan. Also noteworthy is the continued decline of UKIP, now measured at 6%, its lowest share from ICM since January 2013.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
Lab 33.50
Con 33.45
UKIP 13.23
LibDem 9.00
Tory lead -0.05
The Tory gains from UKIP are about 3500 - but 8000 Labour supporters do not turn up. They just sit on their vote.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/861601882548076544/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.conservativehome.com/category/frontpage
Not that I'm complaining, mind.
https://twitter.com/SimonDanczuk/status/861606075107336192
The curious saga of the Lib Dems running a more gaffe-prone campaign than Labour continues.