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.
Astonishing
It's a clever slogan. The SNP always present themselves FOR Scotland and ARE Scotland.
Hurrah, I'm not the only PBer to wear (brown) loafers.
I was just thinking that he looks rather scruffy for a Tory candidate.
Still I suppose we have to make compromises in those parts.
It is alright to wear brown shoes out of Town, isn't it? He would look better if he actually polished the things though.
In town on Fridays, provided you are going to the country that weekend.
Who on earth wouldn't be?!
Doesn't it depend on the time of the year? Surely nice people would not go to the country during the Season, nor during cubbing time.
Anyway, this brown shoes on Friday was just a forerunner of "dress-down Friday" another abomination that we seem to have imported from the USA. Either a dress code matters or it doesn't, the idea that it matters for four days but not on the fifth is a nonsense.
I say is a nonsense but perhaps I should have said was a nonsense. I don't get up to Town much these days but when I do it seems that dress-down days have now been extended include from Monday to Friday.
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
I'm not convinced Marx would be voting labour in this election.
There's a decent chance he'd be arguing with other posters on PB.com, though.
And impressed by the general level of debate, I should think.
He would also feel gratified, I'm sure, at how many of his political recommendations put forward in the Communist Manifesto have been put into effect and in some cases simply taken as the norm now - a graduated income tax, for example.
In that sense, you could argue that we're all Marxists now.
In 2015 UKIP had around 600 candidates that got just under 4m votes, plenty in 5 figures. This time around they'll struggle to get 100 candidates, all but a handful will effectively be paper candidates. I'd suggest an average of 2-3000 per candidate, back to roughly 2010 figures.
That leaves 3.5m + votes up for grabs, 70%+ will vote Conservative but have no idea how that converts into seats. The better informed on here will have a good idea.
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
I'm not convinced Marx would be voting labour in this election.
There's a decent chance he'd be arguing with other posters on PB.com, though.
And impressed by the general level of debate, I should think.
He would also feel gratified, I'm sure, at how many of his political recommendations put forward in the Communist Manifesto have been put into effect and in some cases simply taken as the norm now - a graduated income tax, for example.
In that sense, you could argue that we're all Marxists now.
I think it was the good Dr. Palmer, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here a couple of years back that many of Labour's ideas of the 1980s, which were then regarded anathema, have since been implemented by the Conservative as well as Labour governments.
In 2015 UKIP had around 600 candidates that got just under 4m votes, plenty in 5 figures. This time around they'll struggle to get 100 candidates, all but a handful will effectively be paper candidates. I'd suggest an average of 2-3000 per candidate, back to roughly 2010 figures.
That leaves 3.5m + votes up for grabs, 70%+ will vote Conservative but have no idea how that converts into seats. The better informed on here will have a good idea.
I noted that for all Caroline Lucas' outrage this morning on the radio that the "progressive alliance" was under-represented, no mention was made (and I was disappointed the Today presenter didn't ask her) about UKIP.
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
In my experience there are three types of paper candidate. Those that take pride in following HQ instructions such that sometimes they never even set foot in their constituency during the campaign. Those that resign themselves to dutifully fulfilling their duties as a candidate, going to meetings and knocking on doors more or less on their own. And those that go off piste and try and run an energetic local campaign with whatever resources they can drag in from the local area.
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.”"
Thanks, Tim. I often wondered about the context. Now I know.
You should be careful however about displaying such a familiarity with the words of the Messiah/Pariah (delete as appropriate.) You don't want somebody in Langley opening a file on you.
In 2015 UKIP had around 600 candidates that got just under 4m votes, plenty in 5 figures. This time around they'll struggle to get 100 candidates, all but a handful will effectively be paper candidates. I'd suggest an average of 2-3000 per candidate, back to roughly 2010 figures.
That leaves 3.5m + votes up for grabs, 70%+ will vote Conservative but have no idea how that converts into seats. The better informed on here will have a good idea.
I noted that for all Caroline Lucas' outrage this morning on the radio that the "progressive alliance" was under-represented, no mention was made (and I was disappointed the Today presenter didn't ask her) about UKIP.
You mean the Evil Empire wasn't equally represented? Shocking!
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.
Vince Cable celebrates his 74th birthday tomorrow.
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.”"
Thanks, Tim. I often wondered about the context. Now I know.
You should be careful however about displaying such a familiarity with the words of the Messiah/Pariah (delete as appropriate.) You don't want somebody in Langley opening a file on you.
Ah, yes, Langley. I saw a documentary about that place once.
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
In my experience there are three types of paper candidate. Those that take pride in following HQ instructions such that sometimes they never even set foot in their constituency during the campaign. Those that resign themselves to dutifully fulfilling their duties as a candidate, going to meetings and knocking on doors more or less on their own. And those that go off piste and try and run an energetic local campaign with whatever resources they can drag in from the local area.
.....and those that are told by their wife OK you can stand on condition you don't win. Not usually a problem.
Reading Martin Boon's write up on today's poll , he seems to be saying they have got Labour's vote share right but have Conservatives too high and Lib Dems too low . He says they are seriously considering methodology changes . Meanwhile this latest poll had a record number of Lib Dems for recent polls 175 ( 12% ) weighted down to 136 ( 9% ) .
I'm not convinced Marx would be voting labour in this election.
There's a decent chance he'd be arguing with other posters on PB.com, though.
And impressed by the general level of debate, I should think.
He would also feel gratified, I'm sure, at how many of his political recommendations put forward in the Communist Manifesto have been put into effect and in some cases simply taken as the norm now - a graduated income tax, for example.
In that sense, you could argue that we're all Marxists now.
I think it was the good Dr. Palmer, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here a couple of years back that many of Labour's ideas of the 1980s, which were then regarded anathema, have since been implemented by the Conservative as well as Labour governments.
Reading Martin Boon's write up on today's poll , he seems to be saying they have got Labour's vote share right but have Conservatives too high and Lib Dems too low . He says they are seriously considering methodology changes . Meanwhile this latest poll had a record number of Lib Dems for recent polls 175 ( 12% ) weighted down to 136 ( 9% ) .
Methodological changes during a campaign? What could possibly go wrong!
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.
Vince Cable celebrates his 74th birthday tomorrow.
Felicidades! Of course he was kn own in the coalition for his duplicitousness. In the absence of any words from Farron I guess we can assume he was speaking for the general party line - the Libs will support Labour candidates where they are not in the running. If it quacks like a duck.......
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
Unless, presumably, they win!
That certainly happens at local council level with very popular local figures whose appeal has been underestimated by the party. It's all much more volatile. Just to give an example, I don't suppose UKIP were predicting that their one and only council seat on Thursday wouldn't be a hold but a gain.
I very much doubt, even in 1997, that it has happened nationally in recent times. There are seats parties have been pleasantly surprised to win, but not that they have won having seen as so hopeless that they were demanding the candidate stop mucking about.
I've seen examples, however, of people being ordered out of seats that were wrongly assumed to be reasonably secure, and that were lost.
"It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door."
But it must be pretty unusual to tell them to go to the next door marginal and campaign for a different party.
@paulwaugh: I'm told by 2 separate sources that Katy Clark withdrew from the shortlist for Rochdale amid worries that the NEC panel would not back her.
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.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
Unless, presumably, they win!
That certainly happens at local council level with very popular local figures whose appeal has been underestimated by the party. It's all much more volatile. Just to give an example, I don't suppose UKIP were predicting that their one and only council seat on Thursday wouldn't be a hold but a gain.
I very much doubt, even in 1997, that it has happened nationally in recent times. There are seats parties have been pleasantly surprised to win, but not that they have won having seen as so hopeless that they were demanding the candidate stop mucking about.
I've seen examples, however, of people being ordered out of seats that were wrongly assumed to be reasonably secure, and that were lost.
It certainly doesn't happen very often in the Liberal Democrats, for sure. Charles Kennedy in 1983 was however an interesting case - he only got back to the country from studying in the US a few weeks before the election; it was a new seat but mostly comprised of a predecessor in which the Liberals had come fourth with about 15%. To my knowledge it wasn't on the target list and was the SDP's only gain of the election. Whether he expected to win, I don't really know. Most people assume it was some quirk of highland politics.
Reading Martin Boon's write up on today's poll , he seems to be saying they have got Labour's vote share right but have Conservatives too high and Lib Dems too low . He says they are seriously considering methodology changes . Meanwhile this latest poll had a record number of Lib Dems for recent polls 175 ( 12% ) weighted down to 136 ( 9% ) .
Methodological changes during a campaign? What could possibly go wrong!
By the end of this week, Labour could well be at 25% or lower. I doubt the effect of this weekend's screw ups has yet fed thro to the polls.
It's rather an unexpected answer to the excessive spending issue of campaigning - you just keep your head down & let the opposing parties drive the voters into your column.
Regrettably, coming from Merseyside badly taints my opinion of their seat losses. Round here, swings to the 'Tories' are low and just don't happen. I think the only seat that should be lost here is Wirral West (And the UKPR forum for that seat suggests madly enough that Margaret Greenwood might not actually lose it - with a majority of just 417 and supporting Corbyn - she should be toast). Likewise Wirral South should be very much in play but a local friend reports that Alison McGovern is well liked and has built up a personal vote, which along with the Merseyside effect should see her safe.
Wirral South is No. 46 on the Conservative target list. Those on here talking about 'only' 50 seat losses for Labour should see her gone too, but I don't think she will be.
I do suspect that I see a strong local 'We vote Labour because we vote Labour' effect but I also wonder if that won't translate nationally too, to save Labour from a sub 200 seat meltdown.
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.
Vince Cable celebrates his 74th birthday tomorrow.
Felicidades! Of course he was kn own in the coalition for his duplicitousness. In the absence of any words from Farron I guess we can assume he was speaking for the general party line - the Libs will support Labour candidates where they are not in the running. If it quacks like a duck.......
Why would the Lib Dems want to oppose Conservatives more than oppose Labour?
Don't they want to win over Conservatives to their cause. The Conservative elector pool is much bigger than the Labour pool in which to fish. So Lib Dems should avoid aligning with Labour or Green because it puts off potential sof Conservatives considering the Lib Dems.
Regrettably, coming from Merseyside badly taints my opinion of their seat losses. Round here, swings to the 'Tories' are low and just don't happen. I think the only seat that should be lost here is Wirral West (And the UKPR forum for that seat suggests madly enough that Margaret Greenwood might not actually lose it - with a majority of just 417 and supporting Corbyn - she should be toast). Likewise Wirral South should be very much in play but a local friend reports that Alison McGovern is well liked and has built up a personal vote, which along with the Merseyside effect should see her safe.
Wirral South is No. 46 on the Conservative target list. Those on here talking about 'only' 50 seat losses for Labour should see her gone too, but I don't think she will be.
I do suspect that I see a strong local 'We vote Labour because we vote Labour' effect but I also wonder if that won't translate nationally too, to save Labour from a sub 200 seat meltdown.
There will be Non-uniform swing.
Labour will lose safer seats elsewhere, and retreat to the urban conurbations
For last week's elections Labour was underestimated more than the Tories.
Was there a Scottish local election poll done ?
I don't recall seeing one.
There was 2 but they were done quite far out and didn't ask about independents. They were both wildly wrong but suggest differential turnout as to the wrongness.
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.
Vince Cable celebrates his 74th birthday tomorrow.
Felicidades! Of course he was kn own in the coalition for his duplicitousness. In the absence of any words from Farron I guess we can assume he was speaking for the general party line - the Libs will support Labour candidates where they are not in the running. If it quacks like a duck.......
Why would the Lib Dems want to oppose Conservatives more than oppose Labour?
Don't they want to win over Conservatives to their cause. The Conservative elector pool is much bigger than the Labour pool in which to fish. So Lib Dems should avoid aligning with Labour or Green because it puts off potential sof Conservatives considering the Lib Dems.
I'm sort of assuming now that quite a few leading Lib Dems have sold their seat count on the spreads.
What do you make of 11/4 over 50% vote share for The Tories?
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
Each of those paper candidates, be assured, campaigns as though it is a super-marginal with everything to play for.
Nonsense. It's absolutely commonplace in ALL parties for a no-hope candidate to be told in no uncertain terms by HQ to stop wasting their time and put in the hours in the marginal next door. Those who ignore that friendly advice are given a proper rollocking when it comes to re-approval for the candidate list post-election.
Unless, presumably, they win!
That certainly happens at local council level with very popular local figures whose appeal has been underestimated by the party. It's all much more volatile. Just to give an example, I don't suppose UKIP were predicting that their one and only council seat on Thursday wouldn't be a hold but a gain.
I very much doubt, even in 1997, that it has happened nationally in recent times. There are seats parties have been pleasantly surprised to win, but not that they have won having seen as so hopeless that they were demanding the candidate stop mucking about.
I've seen examples, however, of people being ordered out of seats that were wrongly assumed to be reasonably secure, and that were lost.
It certainly doesn't happen very often in the Liberal Democrats, for sure. Charles Kennedy in 1983 was however an interesting case - he only got back to the country from studying in the US a few weeks before the election; it was a new seat but mostly comprised of a predecessor in which the Liberals had come fourth with about 15%. To my knowledge it wasn't on the target list and was the SDP's only gain of the election. Whether he expected to win, I don't really know. Most people assume it was some quirk of highland politics.
Interesting. Apparently in 1997 the New Labour gains that really stunned Alistair Campbell were St Albans and Wimbledon. I'm guessing St Albans was fought on new boundaries though - Peter Lilley was no longer the candidate and if he'd done the chicken run it wouldn't have been much of a surprise.
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.
Vince Cable celebrates his 74th birthday tomorrow.
Felicidades! Of course he was kn own in the coalition for his duplicitousness. In the absence of any words from Farron I guess we can assume he was speaking for the general party line - the Libs will support Labour candidates where they are not in the running. If it quacks like a duck.......
Why would the Lib Dems want to oppose Conservatives more than oppose Labour?
Don't they want to win over Conservatives to their cause. The Conservative elector pool is much bigger than the Labour pool in which to fish. So Lib Dems should avoid aligning with Labour or Green because it puts off potential sof Conservatives considering the Lib Dems.
I agree with David - essentially these were unwise words from someone who, let's remember, used to be in the Labour Party originally. They aren't the party line and Farron won't want to waste airtime talking about them, if he can help it. The LDs have already ruled out any coalition arrangement in the almost-impossible-to-conceive eventually of a NOM outcome. Of course if it happens a NOM would demand some sort of resolution, but if that were worth debating (which right now it isn't) that would be a question for all the parties.
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.)
I'm sort of assuming now that quite a few leading Lib Dems have sold their seat count on the spreads.
What do you make of 11/4 over 50% vote share for The Tories?
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
Today's poll has them on 49 w UKIP on 8... IMO UKIP cannot get 8
So 58% are either indifferent, don't know or none of these, and that is people interested in polls.
2% are excited, heaven knows what sort of dull lives they must lead.
Given how little the average Brit actually knows about or follows French politics, the finding that a quarter of them (edit/ a third, including the delighteds) are pleased with the outcome is actually quite remarkable. They can't all be PB punters counting their winnings.
Regrettably, coming from Merseyside badly taints my opinion of their seat losses. Round here, swings to the 'Tories' are low and just don't happen. I think the only seat that should be lost here is Wirral West (And the UKPR forum for that seat suggests madly enough that Margaret Greenwood might not actually lose it - with a majority of just 417 and supporting Corbyn - she should be toast). Likewise Wirral South should be very much in play but a local friend reports that Alison McGovern is well liked and has built up a personal vote, which along with the Merseyside effect should see her safe.
Wirral South is No. 46 on the Conservative target list. Those on here talking about 'only' 50 seat losses for Labour should see her gone too, but I don't think she will be.
I do suspect that I see a strong local 'We vote Labour because we vote Labour' effect but I also wonder if that won't translate nationally too, to save Labour from a sub 200 seat meltdown.
My model posted earlier does indeed include Wirral South as a Labour hold against the general flow.
I've done it on the basis of 2015 UKIP vote, with those seats with more than 2/3rds of a standard deviation below the average UKIP vote (like Wirral South) getting a 2.5% swing, those 2/3rds of a standard deviation above an 8.5% swing, and those with a broadly typical UKIP vote a 5.5% swing in line with polls putting the Tory lead at about 17-18%.
The bad news for Labour is Wirral South is not typical. Only Tooting and Westminster North join it as "surprise" holds (i.e. less than UNS needed). Meanwhile, there are 14 "surprise" defeats - Batley & Spen, Dudley N, Great Grimsby, Hartlepool, Mansfield, Newport E, Oldham E, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Stalybridge & Hyde, Wolverhampton NE, Workington, and Worsley & Eccles.
It's a bit back-of-a-fag packet so not to be taken too seriously... but it does illustrate that there's an imbalance. If Labour do indeed suffer badly in seats with a higher than typical UKIP vote, it is not fully compensated for by doing better (or less badly) in seats with a lower than average UKIP vote.
To cut a long story short, Wirral South is NOT typical - it's rather unusual.
Regrettably, coming from Merseyside badly taints my opinion of their seat losses. Round here, swings to the 'Tories' are low and just don't happen. I think the only seat that should be lost here is Wirral West (And the UKPR forum for that seat suggests madly enough that Margaret Greenwood might not actually lose it - with a majority of just 417 and supporting Corbyn - she should be toast). Likewise Wirral South should be very much in play but a local friend reports that Alison McGovern is well liked and has built up a personal vote, which along with the Merseyside effect should see her safe.
Wirral South is No. 46 on the Conservative target list. Those on here talking about 'only' 50 seat losses for Labour should see her gone too, but I don't think she will be.
I do suspect that I see a strong local 'We vote Labour because we vote Labour' effect but I also wonder if that won't translate nationally too, to save Labour from a sub 200 seat meltdown.
I reached 146 that I just could not imagine falling. I had another 26 that I thought Labour were 90% certs to hold. The remainder were the ones at significant risk.
The one caveat is how many Labour supporters will actually get to the booths and vote.
The commitment to vote levels appear to be dreadful in the few demographics where Labour lead. That's what might trigger a deeper collapse.
Betfair had Labour at 11/8 at between 160 and 199. It looked reasonable to me.
Mr. D, the Lib Dems still haven't worked out that the Conservatives are their adversaries, but Labour are their rivals.
It's an obvious but critical thing to grasp. This country isn't leftwing enough for the two big parties to be of the left. For the Lib Dems to aspire to government in their own right they must first supplant Labour.
So 58% are either indifferent, don't know or none of these, and that is people interested in polls.
2% are excited, heaven knows what sort of dull lives they must lead.
When you think how little people in general know about political figures in their own country, it seems a bit strange to be using their 'opinions' of foreign politicians as a guide to anything much.
I'm sort of assuming now that quite a few leading Lib Dems have sold their seat count on the spreads.
What do you make of 11/4 over 50% vote share for The Tories?
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
Today's poll has them on 49 w UKIP on 8... IMO UKIP cannot get 8
We mostly agree UKIP will be lucky to get zilch. We mostly agree Labour will be well below the 30% they've been touching in some polls. We mostly agree the SNP will fall back. And only a few brave souls so far think the Tories can beat 50%.
A LibDem surge is becoming a mathematical necessity?
I'm sort of assuming now that quite a few leading Lib Dems have sold their seat count on the spreads.
What do you make of 11/4 over 50% vote share for The Tories?
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
I think its a very good price for reasons outlined elsewhere, primarily that the Ukip % will collapse from circa 13% to around 3% as a result of few candidates to vote for. The party % is much easier to calculate than seats won imo.
Ah, the fruit basket is full with apples and oranges
Well indeed, and yet, you can't deny the overall shapes do seem a remarkably good fit for the relative fortunes of the various parties over that time frame
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.)
French used to be an important language?
*innocent face*
ta geuele! (even more innocent face, if that's possible.)
This looks like a fairer test than some of the spin we've seen:
twitter.com/YouGov/status/861618328191815680
The reality is most people in the UK don't even follow UK politics that closely, let alone foreign elections. They will have heard lots of bad things about Le Pen, but I doubt many really know much about Macron to be able to express a proper opinion.
I only have a outline idea and I post on a politics betting forum.
I'm sort of assuming now that quite a few leading Lib Dems have sold their seat count on the spreads.
What do you make of 11/4 over 50% vote share for The Tories?
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
I'm sort of assuming now that quite a few leading Lib Dems have sold their seat count on the spreads.
What do you make of 11/4 over 50% vote share for The Tories?
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
imagine if they get 52%. LOL.
Then we should club together and buy Sunil a small steam train
Comments
Anyway, this brown shoes on Friday was just a forerunner of "dress-down Friday" another abomination that we seem to have imported from the USA. Either a dress code matters or it doesn't, the idea that it matters for four days but not on the fifth is a nonsense.
I say is a nonsense but perhaps I should have said was a nonsense. I don't get up to Town much these days but when I do it seems that dress-down days have now been extended include from Monday to Friday.
He would also feel gratified, I'm sure, at how many of his political recommendations put forward in the Communist Manifesto have been put into effect and in some cases simply taken as the norm now - a graduated income tax, for example.
In that sense, you could argue that we're all Marxists now.
That leaves 3.5m + votes up for grabs, 70%+ will vote Conservative but have no idea how that converts into seats. The better informed on here will have a good idea.
Con 46.88
Lab 28.50
LD 9.75
UKIP 6.75
Tory lead 18.38 (+0.16)
But if you're going to be pedantic about transliteration from the Cyrillic it should start with an I anyway.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/861611450183417857
You should be careful however about displaying such a familiarity with the words of the Messiah/Pariah (delete as appropriate.) You don't want somebody in Langley opening a file on you.
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-08/no-coalitions-farron-insists-after-cable-hints-at-lib-dem-alliances-with-labour/
I very much doubt, even in 1997, that it has happened nationally in recent times. There are seats parties have been pleasantly surprised to win, but not that they have won having seen as so hopeless that they were demanding the candidate stop mucking about.
I've seen examples, however, of people being ordered out of seats that were wrongly assumed to be reasonably secure, and that were lost.
But it must be pretty unusual to tell them to go to the next door marginal and campaign for a different party.
Hills are 4/1 Thurrock and 8/1 over 0.5
Rochdale was one of the few constituencies in 2015 that had a National Front candidate.
@paulwaugh: I'm told by 2 separate sources that Katy Clark withdrew from the shortlist for Rochdale amid worries that the NEC panel would not back her.
Regrettably, coming from Merseyside badly taints my opinion of their seat losses. Round here, swings to the 'Tories' are low and just don't happen. I think the only seat that should be lost here is Wirral West (And the UKPR forum for that seat suggests madly enough that Margaret Greenwood might not actually lose it - with a majority of just 417 and supporting Corbyn - she should be toast). Likewise Wirral South should be very much in play but a local friend reports that Alison McGovern is well liked and has built up a personal vote, which along with the Merseyside effect should see her safe.
Wirral South is No. 46 on the Conservative target list. Those on here talking about 'only' 50 seat losses for Labour should see her gone too, but I don't think she will be.
I do suspect that I see a strong local 'We vote Labour because we vote Labour' effect but I also wonder if that won't translate nationally too, to save Labour from a sub 200 seat meltdown.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/861618328191815680
Don't they want to win over Conservatives to their cause. The Conservative elector pool is much bigger than the Labour pool in which to fish. So Lib Dems should avoid aligning with Labour or Green because it puts off potential sof Conservatives considering the Lib Dems.
Labour will lose safer seats elsewhere, and retreat to the urban conurbations
I haven't bet on it but I think that's pretty fair. Given the Lib Dems' determination to ruin their campaign at every turn, UKIP's orderly winding-up and severe doubts over the reliability of Labour's voters, the Conservatives might well outperform polls in practice. The vote share has to go somewhere.
2% are excited, heaven knows what sort of dull lives they must lead.
*innocent face*
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAUtJZzfnfYS_uarczPdRBJ1XgVNGfvyBU6Adz5YDGc/edit#gid=0
I've done it on the basis of 2015 UKIP vote, with those seats with more than 2/3rds of a standard deviation below the average UKIP vote (like Wirral South) getting a 2.5% swing, those 2/3rds of a standard deviation above an 8.5% swing, and those with a broadly typical UKIP vote a 5.5% swing in line with polls putting the Tory lead at about 17-18%.
The bad news for Labour is Wirral South is not typical. Only Tooting and Westminster North join it as "surprise" holds (i.e. less than UNS needed). Meanwhile, there are 14 "surprise" defeats - Batley & Spen, Dudley N, Great Grimsby, Hartlepool, Mansfield, Newport E, Oldham E, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Stalybridge & Hyde, Wolverhampton NE, Workington, and Worsley & Eccles.
It's a bit back-of-a-fag packet so not to be taken too seriously... but it does illustrate that there's an imbalance. If Labour do indeed suffer badly in seats with a higher than typical UKIP vote, it is not fully compensated for by doing better (or less badly) in seats with a lower than average UKIP vote.
To cut a long story short, Wirral South is NOT typical - it's rather unusual.
I reached 146 that I just could not imagine falling. I had another 26 that I thought Labour were 90% certs to hold. The remainder were the ones at significant risk.
The one caveat is how many Labour supporters will actually get to the booths and vote.
The commitment to vote levels appear to be dreadful in the few demographics where Labour lead. That's what might trigger a deeper collapse.
Betfair had Labour at 11/8 at between 160 and 199. It looked reasonable to me.
It's an obvious but critical thing to grasp. This country isn't leftwing enough for the two big parties to be of the left. For the Lib Dems to aspire to government in their own right they must first supplant Labour.
https://twitter.com/meanwhilescotia/status/861536995746754560
A LibDem surge is becoming a mathematical necessity?
I'm following you in.
Ex-business secretary Sir Vince Cable said he would find it "difficult to vote against" a Labour candidate whose views were "very close" to his own.
Lib Dem Richmond Park candidate Sarah Olney suggested the use of "paper candidates" or "not campaigning".
But Mr Farron said: "Let me be clear: no pact, no deal, no coalition."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39848939
I only have a outline idea and I post on a politics betting forum.