One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
I think we are due something similar. LD recovery in votes, but few seats. Farron has struggled to get seen, and then rather hamfistedly. Possibly the TV set pieces will help with exposure.
Hospital computers all seem to be working, just a bit slow booting as they all upgrade...
Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk: - Likely Con Dumfries & Galloway: - Leaning Con Aberdeen W + K - Leaning Con Perth & N Perthshire: - Likely SNP Moray: - Too close to Call Aberdeen South: - Too close to call Stirling: - Leaning SNP Edinburgh SW: - Too close to call East Lothian: - Likely SNP Renfrew E: - Too close to Call Angus: - Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
- 1 'Likely Con', 2 'Leaning Con', 5 TCTC and 3 Likely SNP
Lib Dem Dunbartonshire East: Too close to call Edinburgh West: Too close to call Fife North East: Too close to call Caithness: Too close to call Ross Skye: Too close to call Gordon: Too close to call Argyll & Bute: Too close to call Aberdeen W : - Leaning Con
7 TCTC and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
Labour: Renfrew E: Too close to call Edinburgh N & Leith: Leaning Lab East Lothian: Likely SNP Paisley & Ren S: Likely SNP Aberdeen S: Too close to call Edinburgh SW: Too close to call Dumfries & G: Leaning Con Rutherglen: Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
1 Leaning Lab, 4 TCTC 3 Likely SNP and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
So, 3 Con 'likely/leaning', , 1 Leaning Lab and 13 Too close to call......
It is quite possible that the LDs get a lower vote share in Scotland than in England and Wales (say 7% Vs 10%), but end up with the majority of their seats North of the border.
I can see O&S, Edin W and perhaps Fife NE and/or Dun E so 3/4 would mean only 2/3 in England and Wales. A tight forecast Robert.
That would still be 500% better than their best result in Scotland in the last 25 years.
At the moment SCon are getting very carried away. 13 seats seems unlikely, yet they are still on course for their best result in Scotland in decades. They ought in many ways to be downplaying their chances in some seats in the hope of depressing turnout among Nats disillusioned by Sturgeon's domestic record and constitutional posturing.
Now they've whipped up such a fervour if they're not in double figures there will be pressure on Davidson, while Sturgeon will almost certainly survive what looks set to be a significant drop in the vote and the loss of several seats.
400% better I think...
You teach the mathematical subject, I'll take your word for it!
Edit: due to staffing shortages I was once asked if I would be happy to teach some maths. I proved that philosophically speaking 2+2 equals 5. Strangely I was not asked again!
I can prove it mathematically. You just need sufficiently large values of 2.
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
The lesson they might have learned from that is that in the GE they should go all out against the weakened Labour Party - Corbyn's presence means they will never have a better shot at replacing them - rather than wasting effort trying to take seats from a strong Conservative Party.
I suspect that whatever claims to the contrary he makes, Farron is a lot more anti-Tory than anti-Labour, and can't stomach doing what would be electorally best for his party.
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
Last week I tipped on here Edouard Philippe at 4.1 (and Idrac at 4.3), he is now 1.01 on Betfair.
He is treated as an absolute certainty by French media this morning but the announcement has been delayed now by around two hours...
I took the opportunity of cashing out at 1.02 and it's still possible to do so at 1.05.
Morning Chris and thanks for that. Nice to start the day with a winner.
Thanks also for your invaluable assistance with the Presidency betting. That was a nice little earner for me, although it was largely down to laying Le Pen rather than backing Macron. I always thought there was a danger he may not make the run-off, whereas I just couldn't see any route to victory for her.
Good morning everyone. Anyone know when postal votes will hit mats across the country? Fascinated by the Ashcroft Scots marginals info.... Ochil a target before Banff? Seems highly unlikely to me (not that id expect either going blue this time as it stands)
One possible factor is what was referredbto in the Referendum as the Council estate vote where there were large LEAVE turnouts in areas with a tradition of disengagement/non-voting. These individuals voted for the first time and guess what? They won. Their vote had an impact. Their vote mattered. Wow. Now with TMay looking to implement Brexit and much of the political estabishment lukewarm to actively hostile i suspect large numbers of previous non voters will come out again having lost their voting virginity. They know how to do it and they know it can work. Much less likely to bother for the locals though.
Just a thought
And it is Conservatives getting these voters out that will hammer sitting LD MPs
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
I think the polling in 3) was predicated on the assumption of there being by-elections caused by Conservative MPs being successfully prosecuted for offences under 2)..... But the mid-point in the LibDem seats markets shows the election situation has developed not necessarily to the LibDem's advantage.
That would still be 500% better than their best result in Scotland in the last 25 years.
At the moment SCon are getting very carried away. 13 seats seems unlikely, yet they are still on course for their best result in Scotland in decades. They ought in many ways to be downplaying their chances in some seats in the hope of depressing turnout among Nats disillusioned by Sturgeon's domestic record and constitutional posturing.
Now they've whipped up such a fervour if they're not in double figures there will be pressure on Davidson, while Sturgeon will almost certainly survive what looks set to be a significant drop in the vote and the loss of several seats.
400% better I think...
You teach the mathematical subject, I'll take your word for it!
Edit: due to staffing shortages I was once asked if I would be happy to teach some maths. I proved that philosophically speaking 2+2 equals 5. Strangely I was not asked again!
I can prove it mathematically. You just need sufficiently large values of 2.
Re the LDs and coalitions etc. I'd understood that Farron's view is that he could not work with the Conservatives or a Corbyn led Labour Party. Which makes it clear that as a liberal conservative he has no interest in my vote.
You'll have some spare time on 8th June. None of the parties with any prospect of 1+ seats has endorsed a coalition.
I took the opportunity of cashing out at 1.02 and it's still possible to do so at 1.05.
Thanks for you continuing insight. Mrs JackW thanks shoe too ....
Post Macron inauguration what are you early impressions for the parliamentary elections ?
The way the government is composed, presented and received by the general public will be key. My current forecast would be En marche as the biggest party but probably not with an overall majority.
Last week I tipped on here Edouard Philippe at 4.1 (and Idrac at 4.3), he is now 1.01 on Betfair.
He is treated as an absolute certainty by French media this morning but the announcement has been delayed now by around two hours...
I took the opportunity of cashing out at 1.02 and it's still possible to do so at 1.05.
Morning Chris and thanks for that. Nice to start the day with a winner.
Thanks also for your invaluable assistance with the Presidency betting. That was a nice little earner for me, although it was largely down to laying Le Pen rather than backing Macron. I always thought there was a danger he may not make the run-off, whereas I just couldn't see any route to victory for her.
Bien fait, mon vieux!
Thanks Peter!
I enjoy contributing to this site every 5 years...
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
Re the LDs and coalitions etc. I'd understood that Farron's view is that he could not work with the Conservatives or a Corbyn led Labour Party. Which makes it clear that as a liberal conservative he has no interest in my vote.
You'll have some spare time on 8th June. None of the parties with any prospect of 1+ seats has endorsed a coalition.
Thanks for the non-sequitur.
It's always wise to think outside of the (ballot) box.
I took the opportunity of cashing out at 1.02 and it's still possible to do so at 1.05.
Thanks for you continuing insight. Mrs JackW thanks shoe too ....
Post Macron inauguration what are you early impressions for the parliamentary elections ?
The way the government is composed, presented and received by the general public will be key. My current forecast would be En marche as the biggest party but probably not with an overall majority.
An interesting article in the Tablet yesterday on Juncker and his mate Martin Selmayr, by Ivor Roberts, a former British Ambassador to Ireland and Italy. Not complimentary.
His view ... "As long as Juncker and Selmayr are involved in the negotiations, they will be confrontational and go nowhere."
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
I think the polling in 3) was predicated on the assumption of there being by-elections caused by Conservative MPs being successfully prosecuted for offences under 2)..... But the mid-point in the LibDem seats markets shows the election situation has developed not necessarily to the LibDem's advantage.
That would make more sense but the heavy conditionals involved were certainly not emphasised when that private poll was ramped.
And then we had OGH's 'Why is May campaigning in a constituency with an 8,000 Conservative majority' tweet during May's trip to Cornwall - which suggests to me that LibDems had bought into the theory that the Conservative leadership was concerned about their 2015 gains from the LibDems.
A gaffe, sardonic observers have long recognised, is defined as a moment when a politician inadvertently admits the truth. By that standard, Nicola Sturgeon’s admission yesterday that “we have identified a particular problem with literacy and numeracy” in Scotland’s schools counts as a mighty gaffe. Parents are entitled to feel that, as “particular” problems go, substandard levels of literacy and numeracy could be seen as considerable.
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
One possible factor is what was referredbto in the Referendum as the Council estate vote where there were large LEAVE turnouts in areas with a tradition of disengagement/non-voting. These individuals voted for the first time and guess what? They won. Their vote had an impact. Their vote mattered. Wow. Now with TMay looking to implement Brexit and much of the political estabishment lukewarm to actively hostile i suspect large numbers of previous non voters will come out again having lost their voting virginity. They know how to do it and they know it can work. Much less likely to bother for the locals though.
Just a thought
And it is Conservatives getting these voters out that will hammer sitting LD MPs
OK. The LDs got 8 MPs last time around. Of these, two are LD v Labour seats, one is against the SNP, and one against Plaid. That leaves four against the Conservatives. Of the remaining, one is Farron's seat where they got over 50% last time around (and it did vote Remain in the referendum, and where they increased their vote in the locals last week).
So that leave 3 vulnerable LibDem seats to the Conservatives. I would be very surprised if Brake hung on in Carshalton. In Southport there's a decent sized UKIP vote to hoover up, and Pugh is standing down, so that's a probably loss too. North Norfolk is a bit harder: it's a Leave seat, but Con + 66% of UKIP only just exceeds the 2015 LibDem vote total. If Lamb is able to grab a few of theex-UKIPpers, he probably hangs on. I'd make him the marginal favourite.
Richmond-upon-Thames, were it any other Conservative candidate, would be an easy gain. Still, a likely Conservative gain.
I reckon, therefore, the LDs will keep 6/7 of their existing seats.
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
Turn that around. Outside Durham and Northumberland, the LDs gained councillors.
(Edit to add: didn't notice you are using 2008/9 numbers. Which makes it a meaningless comparison. The question is not "are the LDs at 2008/9 levels, where they were in the mid 20s nationally", but "have they recovered, even slightly, from where they were during the coalition". My position is that they have recovered somewhat, and that they will get around 12% in the General Election on June 9th, and will probably end up with 12-14 seats.)
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
The lesson they might have learned from that is that in the GE they should go all out against the weakened Labour Party - Corbyn's presence means they will never have a better shot at replacing them - rather than wasting effort trying to take seats from a strong Conservative Party.
I suspect that whatever claims to the contrary he makes, Farron is a lot more anti-Tory than anti-Labour, and can't stomach doing what would be electorally best for his party.
That's right. This election was a real opportunity for the LDs. Led by a different leader, they would have a much better shot.
The final numbers from the North Rhine-Westphalia election give a potential CDU 72 seats FPD 28 seats coalition the thinnest majority in the 199 seat Lander :
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
Sky losing the plot with a report on social media election targeting that was filmed and reported as if the whole thing were being done by Fred West.
Is their main complaint that they feel outside the loop and risk looking stupid? Or something rational?
It's UNREGULATED! We just don't know what people are being told like we do with billboards. It's horrifically concerning etc etc. Oh the horror. Complete with sketchy filming like a secret camera and 'interference' on the pictures. Laughable. It was by faisal Islam. Surprise surprise Oh, and the only examples given were the Tories bigger than UNS gains in 2015 and Trump. Message undertone very clear.
As I said, I do think you're entirely wrong about federalism but an honest disagreement is fine (indeed, the basis of democracy). What I dislike is the weaselly evasiveness and half-truths of some politicians on the subject.
Yes, I think it would have been healthier if Europhiles had acknowledged the Federalist agenda from the outset (and I mean the origins of the EU back when it was just six countries) rather than trying to fudge the question and deceive the public.
Europhobes may not be noted for their honesty and integrity either but two wrongs will never make a right.
I think some eurosceptics concluded that such was the disingenuousness of the federalist agenda that, if they wanted to win the war, they had to fight fire with fire.
Hm, and what is Blanchflower's track record like when it comes to predictions?
Five million unemployed.
I think the UK will take an economic and geopolitical hit for 5-10 years, over and above what it would have done if we had Remained in the EU, as our new geopolitical and trading web re-establishes.
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
Turn that around. Outside Durham and Northumberland, the LDs gained councillors.
But where ?
Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire all had net losses in LibDem councillors as did Cornwall if you count what they went into the election holding rather than the 2013 total.
Also down in Nottinghamshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Essex, Suffolk, North Yorkshire and probably some other places as well.
Is there a single county where the LibDems can point to and say "Look at X, didn't we do well there" ?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
The lesson they might have learned from that is that in the GE they should go all out against the weakened Labour Party - Corbyn's presence means they will never have a better shot at replacing them - rather than wasting effort trying to take seats from a strong Conservative Party.
I suspect that whatever claims to the contrary he makes, Farron is a lot more anti-Tory than anti-Labour, and can't stomach doing what would be electorally best for his party.
That's right. This election was a real opportunity for the LDs. Led by a different leader, they would have a much better shot.
Of course, achieving a major re-alignment under FPTP is terribly difficult, however much an established party shoots itself in the foot. the chances of displacing the Labour Party would have been small, but they won't get another opportunity this good for a very long time.
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
I think the polling in 3) was predicated on the assumption of there being by-elections caused by Conservative MPs being successfully prosecuted for offences under 2)..... But the mid-point in the LibDem seats markets shows the election situation has developed not necessarily to the LibDem's advantage.
That would make more sense but the heavy conditionals involved were certainly not emphasised when that private poll was ramped.
And then we had OGH's 'Why is May campaigning in a constituency with an 8,000 Conservative majority' tweet during May's trip to Cornwall - which suggests to me that LibDems had bought into the theory that the Conservative leadership was concerned about their 2015 gains from the LibDems.
May's Cornwall trip would probably have been set up before the local election results were known.
A whole thread about my chances! I have come a long way
I was debating this point the other day with a Labour MP and we both thought there was something in what OGH/Stephen Fisher say. There are definitely some Lab 2010 - UKIP 2015 voters who would never vote Conservative. The Yorkshire Party might surprise a little amongst such voters, given their antipathy to Corbyn. (Never mind their manifesto!)
Just listening to the latest Freakonomics podcast about the book Everybody Lies (Podcast is called how big is my pen1s - and other things we ask google which is what the author wanted to call his book).
There is actually a name for some of the things that crop up in voting polls called social desirability bias - that is people underreport less socially desirable behaviour to even online polls.
This got me thinking what is less socially desirable
- people who didn't actually vote last time are saying they did vote and more likely to be represented in the Labour UKIP figure - to say you voted for a secondary party in areas of predominance I.e. other than SNP in Scotland, Labour in North, Conservatives in South - public sector workers saying that they will vote conservative
There could also be an opposite for lib-dems as they were very undesirable last time due to coalition
The final numbers from the North Rhine-Westphalia election give a potential CDU 72 seats FPD 28 seats coalition the thinnest majority in the 199 seat Lander :
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
One might have thought that the LibDems would be more concerned about trying o ensure that they were not reduced to a mere handful of M.P.s than being so eager to support a Corbyn led Labour party .... still it's their call.
Who knows what the LibDems are playing at. Their main strategy of being a home for disgruntled Tory Remainers seems to have crashed and burned - oh what a surprise - so now they are floundering around trying to find themselves a relevance.
Your simplistic analysis misunderstands the strategy. I'm preparing a post on it based on conversations with a leading member of LD campaign team who has been a regular poster on PB.
I'm sure it's fantabulously sophisticated.
But is it working?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-S
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
I think the polling in 3) was predicated on the assumption of there being by-elections caused by Conservative MPs being successfully prosecuted for offences under 2)..... But the mid-point in the LibDem seats markets shows the election situation has developed not necessarily to the LibDem's advantage.
That would make more sense but the heavy conditionals involved were certainly not emphasised when that private poll was ramped.
And then we had OGH's 'Why is May campaigning in a constituency with an 8,000 Conservative majority' tweet during May's trip to Cornwall - which suggests to me that LibDems had bought into the theory that the Conservative leadership was concerned about their 2015 gains from the LibDems.
May's Cornwall trip would probably have been set up before the local election results were known.
I certainly hope so as she visited before the local election. If the results were known before her visit was set up then either she has access to a time machine or the whole thing was rigged...
A whole thread about my chances! I have come a long way
I was debating this point the other day with a Labour MP and we both thought there was something in what OGH/Stephen Fisher say. There are definitely some Lab 2010 - UKIP 2015 voters who would never vote Conservative. The Yorkshire Party might surprise a little amongst such voters, given their antipathy to Corbyn. (Never mind their manifesto!)
The final numbers from the North Rhine-Westphalia election give a potential CDU 72 seats FDP 28 seats coalition the thinnest majority in the 199 seat Lander :
Don't get cocky. Many Leavers voted fully cognisant of the short-medium term risks.
There will be some jobs, and supply chains, that cease to make sense once the UK has left the EU. However, the fundamental attractions of the UK will remain and there will be new opportunities created through new trade deals, and flexibility of applying an independent regulatory regime.
But these will take time to come to fruition, and loss aversion is a very powerful emotion.
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
Don't get cocky. Many Leavers voted fully cognisant of the short-medium term risks.
There will be some jobs, and supply chains, that cease to make sense once the UK has left the EU. However, the fundamental attractions of the UK will remain and there will be new opportunities created through new trade deals, and flexibility of applying an independent regulatory regime.
But these will take time to come to fruition, and loss aversion is a very powerful emotion.
I’m sure that LAB and the LDs will seek to make a UKIP pull-out in key general election seats an argument to try to get tactical voting for the contender most able to beat the Conservative. Mike Smithson
And I'm just as sure they won't. A general election is a different kettle of fish from a by-election where parties can focus on the minutiae of the seat.
Jacob Rees Mogg I find hard to trust- his smug Eton-ness and patronising manner always grates with me, I am not surprised he isn't fronting TM's efforts to get the working class vote out, then again he may be having a tricky fight with the LDs who did respectably in his seat for the West of England Mayoralty......he should hold it but I am not sure the good voters of East Bristol/West Bath like his somewhat condescending manner
He's apparently a true gent according to known stuffy right wingers jess Phillips and Natalie Bennett. His manner I'm sure does not work with plenty of voters, but apparently he is extremely courteous.
Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk: - Likely Con Dumfries & Galloway: - Leaning Con Aberdeen W + K - Leaning Con Perth & N Perthshire: - Likely SNP Moray: - Too close to Call Aberdeen South: - Too close to call Stirling: - Leaning SNP Edinburgh SW: - Too close to call East Lothian: - Likely SNP Renfrew E: - Too close to Call Angus: - Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
- 1 'Likely Con', 2 'Leaning Con', 5 TCTC and 3 Likely SNP
Lib Dem Dunbartonshire East: Too close to call Edinburgh West: Too close to call Fife North East: Too close to call Caithness: Too close to call Ross Skye: Too close to call Gordon: Too close to call Argyll & Bute: Too close to call Aberdeen W : - Leaning Con
7 TCTC and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
Labour: Renfrew E: Too close to call Edinburgh N & Leith: Leaning Lab East Lothian: Likely SNP Paisley & Ren S: Likely SNP Aberdeen S: Too close to call Edinburgh SW: Too close to call Dumfries & G: Leaning Con Rutherglen: Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
1 Leaning Lab, 4 TCTC 3 Likely SNP and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
So, 3 Con 'likely/leaning', , 1 Leaning Lab and 13 Too close to call......
It is quite possible that the LDs get a lower vote share in Scotland than in England and Wales (say 7% Vs 10%), but end up with the majority of their seats North of the border.
I’m sure that LAB and the LDs will seek to make a UKIP pull-out in key general election seats an argument to try to get tactical voting for the contender most able to beat the Conservative. Mike Smithson
And I'm just as sure they won't. A general election is a different kettle of fish from a by-election where parties can focus on the minutiae of the seat.
I'm not convinced that the LDs openly putting themselves forward as Corbyn's little helpers is good for them - or for Labour.
Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk: - Likely Con Dumfries & Galloway: - Leaning Con Aberdeen W + K - Leaning Con Perth & N Perthshire: - Likely SNP Moray: - Too close to Call Aberdeen South: - Too close to call Stirling: - Leaning SNP Edinburgh SW: - Too close to call East Lothian: - Likely SNP Renfrew E: - Too close to Call Angus: - Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
- 1 'Likely Con', 2 'Leaning Con', 5 TCTC and 3 Likely SNP
Lib Dem Dunbartonshire East: Too close to call Edinburgh West: Too close to call Fife North East: Too close to call Caithness: Too close to call Ross Skye: Too close to call Gordon: Too close to call Argyll & Bute: Too close to call Aberdeen W : - Leaning Con
7 TCTC and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
Labour: Renfrew E: Too close to call Edinburgh N & Leith: Leaning Lab East Lothian: Likely SNP Paisley & Ren S: Likely SNP Aberdeen S: Too close to call Edinburgh SW: Too close to call Dumfries & G: Leaning Con Rutherglen: Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
1 Leaning Lab, 4 TCTC 3 Likely SNP and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
So, 3 Con 'likely/leaning', , 1 Leaning Lab and 13 Too close to call......
That's pretty much the same result I got after 15 mins with excel a couple of weeks ago. All the Con too close to calls were on the Con gain side.
So all to play for - on both sides! Could be a great night for SCON.....or not......
I hope that fewer than 5 Con MPs are returned from north of the border. The smaller May's majority, the better.
Better they win plenty north if the border but fail to gain places South it, in my ciew.
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
The lesson they might have learned from that is that in the GE they should go all out against the weakened Labour Party - Corbyn's presence means they will never have a better shot at replacing them - rather than wasting effort trying to take seats from a strong Conservative Party.
I suspect that whatever claims to the contrary he makes, Farron is a lot more anti-Tory than anti-Labour, and can't stomach doing what would be electorally best for his party.
That's right. This election was a real opportunity for the LDs. Led by a different leader, they would have a much better shot.
Of course, achieving a major re-alignment under FPTP is terribly difficult, however much an established party shoots itself in the foot. the chances of displacing the Labour Party would have been small, but they won't get another opportunity this good for a very long time.
Will the Labour Party still exist a few months after the election - or will there be two of them?
That's pretty much the same result I got after 15 mins with excel a couple of weeks ago. All the Con too close to calls were on the Con gain side.
So all to play for - on both sides! Could be a great night for SCON.....or not......
I hope that fewer than 5 Con MPs are returned from north of the border. The smaller May's majority, the better.
That would still be 500% better than their best result in Scotland in the last 25 years.
At the moment SCon are getting very carried away. 13 seats seems unlikely, yet they are still on course for their best result in Scotland in decades. They ought in many ways to be downplaying their chances in some seats in the hope of depressing turnout among Nats disillusioned by Sturgeon's domestic record and constitutional posturing.
Now they've whipped up such a fervour if they're not in double figures there will be pressure on Davidson, while Sturgeon will almost certainly survive what looks set to be a significant drop in the vote and the loss of several seats.
would be hard not to be their best result , anything will mean that. They are a bunch of sectarian right wing bigots, hopefully they will be slaughtered. Scotland can do without these nasties having any say.
A rare moment of caution and uncertainty from you, Malc.
A whole thread about my chances! I have come a long way
I was debating this point the other day with a Labour MP and we both thought there was something in what OGH/Stephen Fisher say. There are definitely some Lab 2010 - UKIP 2015 voters who would never vote Conservative. The Yorkshire Party might surprise a little amongst such voters, given their antipathy to Corbyn. (Never mind their manifesto!)
Make Don Valley Great Again !
The Five Big Questions for Aaron :
1. Are there any "coach tapes" that Don Valley punters should be worried about? 2. What size are your hands? 3. Do you sport a comb-over? 4. What are your property holdings in Russia? 5. Will your election address contain fake news or bar charts?
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
Or is a victim of autocorrect who was typing too fast to notice.
The autocorrects I've experienced all seem to correct spelling rather than punctuation. In any case If you're a pol playing with sectarian fire, I'd have hoped you might be extra careful with the message you're trying to get over.
I’m sure that LAB and the LDs will seek to make a UKIP pull-out in key general election seats an argument to try to get tactical voting for the contender most able to beat the Conservative. Mike Smithson
And I'm just as sure they won't. A general election is a different kettle of fish from a by-election where parties can focus on the minutiae of the seat.
It sounds like you don't believe that tactical voting happens, that must have an impact on your betting chances.
The political landscape has changed so much the Lib Dems need to reposition. During an election campaign isn't a good time to do it, to be fair to Tim Farron. You will lose your old supporters faster than you can convince new supporters to come on board. I think they need to move to a ticket that is firmly internationalist, connected and which embraces the modern world. Somewhat returning to Liberal roots in the 19th century. Broadly similar to the CDU in Germany and Emmanuel Macron in France, spaces both the Conservative and Labour parties used to hold but have largely abandoned
Chelyabinsk came up with this analysis of centre politics in a previous thread. It identifies eight political tribes: Democratic Socialists and Community - worth 13% of the electorate and Labour core; Common Sense and Our Community - worth 50% of the electorate and claimed by May Conservatism. The remaining four tribes would be amenable to a rebranded Lib Dems and are worth a total of 31% of the electorate. (Both the distinctions between the tribes and their relative weights are fluid). They are:
Progressives (11%) Open, internationalist and inclusive view of Britain, comfortable with immigration. Belief in the welfare state, balanced view towards tax and the economy.
Swing voters (7%) Mixture of views. Support an equal society, internationalist outlook, hard stance on benefits, support a low tax economy
New Britain (6%) Open capitalist economy, pro-immigration, pro-single market, supportive of low tax economy. Business friendly, internationalist, compassionate view of society
Free Liberals (7%) Strong faith in the market, little interest in socially conservative ideas. Strongly pro-business, the most opposed to the welfare state. The most personally optimistic.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
I’m sure that LAB and the LDs will seek to make a UKIP pull-out in key general election seats an argument to try to get tactical voting for the contender most able to beat the Conservative. Mike Smithson
And I'm just as sure they won't. A general election is a different kettle of fish from a by-election where parties can focus on the minutiae of the seat.
It sounds like you don't believe that tactical voting happens, that must have an impact on your betting chances.
Labour better hope too much tactical voting doesn't take place, see Street/Simon LD 2nd prefs and May/Corbyn splits with ALL other parties in the supplementals.
A whole thread about my chances! I have come a long way
I was debating this point the other day with a Labour MP and we both thought there was something in what OGH/Stephen Fisher say. There are definitely some Lab 2010 - UKIP 2015 voters who would never vote Conservative. The Yorkshire Party might surprise a little amongst such voters, given their antipathy to Corbyn. (Never mind their manifesto!)
Make Don Valley Great Again !
The Five Big Questions for Aaron :
1. Are there any "coach tapes" that Don Valley punters should be worried about? 2. What size are your hands? 3. Do you sport a comb-over? 4. What are your property holdings in Russia? 5. Will your election address contain fake news or bar charts?
If a police constable earns £30,000 a year, who puts the bins out?
A whole thread about my chances! I have come a long way
I was debating this point the other day with a Labour MP and we both thought there was something in what OGH/Stephen Fisher say. There are definitely some Lab 2010 - UKIP 2015 voters who would never vote Conservative. The Yorkshire Party might surprise a little amongst such voters, given their antipathy to Corbyn. (Never mind their manifesto!)
Make Don Valley Great Again !
The Five Big Questions for Aaron :
1. Are there any "coach tapes" that Don Valley punters should be worried about? 2. What size are your hands? 3. Do you sport a comb-over? 4. What are your property holdings in Russia? 5. Will your election address contain fake news or bar charts?
If a police constable earns £30,000 a year, who puts the bins out?
Don't get cocky. Many Leavers voted fully cognisant of the short-medium term risks.
There will be some jobs, and supply chains, that cease to make sense once the UK has left the EU. However, the fundamental attractions of the UK will remain and there will be new opportunities created through new trade deals, and flexibility of applying an independent regulatory regime.
But these will take time to come to fruition, and loss aversion is a very powerful emotion.
Many didn't.
Yes, and many will have voted Remain in the belief that they were voting for the status quo, and would have been surprised if the EU continued to federalise.
Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk: - Likely Con Dumfries & Galloway: - Leaning Con Aberdeen W + K - Leaning Con Perth & N Perthshire: - Likely SNP Moray: - Too close to Call Aberdeen South: - Too close to call Stirling: - Leaning SNP Edinburgh SW: - Too close to call East Lothian: - Likely SNP Renfrew E: - Too close to Call Angus: - Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
- 1 'Likely Con', 2 'Leaning Con', 5 TCTC and 3 Likely SNP
Lib Dem Dunbartonshire East: Too close to call Edinburgh West: Too close to call Fife North East: Too close to call Caithness: Too close to call Ross Skye: Too close to call Gordon: Too close to call Argyll & Bute: Too close to call Aberdeen W : - Leaning Con
7 TCTC and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
Labour: Renfrew E: Too close to call Edinburgh N & Leith: Leaning Lab East Lothian: Likely SNP Paisley & Ren S: Likely SNP Aberdeen S: Too close to call Edinburgh SW: Too close to call Dumfries & G: Leaning Con Rutherglen: Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
1 Leaning Lab, 4 TCTC 3 Likely SNP and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
So, 3 Con 'likely/leaning', , 1 Leaning Lab and 13 Too close to call......
That's pretty much the same result I got after 15 mins with excel a couple of weeks ago. All the Con too close to calls were on the Con gain side.
So all to play for - on both sides! Could be a great night for SCON.....or not......
I hope that fewer than 5 Con MPs are returned from north of the border. The smaller May's majority, the better.
We have different fish to fry in Scotland, haddock instead of cod, and different priorities. I will be cheering any SLAB or Lib Dem gains north of the border almost as loudly as the Tory ones.
Thank goodness that the SCons have almost entirely absorbed Scottish kipperdom so you're not in the awkward (though admittedly unlikely) position of hoping for UKIP success.
The political landscape has changed so much the Lib Dems need to reposition. During an election campaign isn't a good time to do it, to be fair to Tim Farron. You will lose your old supporters faster than you can convince new supporters to come on board. I think they need to move to a ticket that is firmly internationalist, connected and which embraces the modern world. Somewhat returning to Liberal roots in the 19th century. Broadly similar to the CDU in Germany and Emmanuel Macron in France, spaces both the Conservative and Labour parties used to hold but have largely abandoned
Chelyabinsk came up with this analysis of centre politics in a previous thread. It identifies eight political tribes: Democratic Socialists and Community - worth 13% of the electorate and Labour core; Common Sense and Our Community - worth 50% of the electorate and claimed by May Conservatism. The remaining four tribes would be amenable to a rebranded Lib Dems and are worth a total of 31% of the electorate. (Both the distinctions between the tribes and their relative weights are fluid). They are:
Progressives (11%) Open, internationalist and inclusive view of Britain, comfortable with immigration. Belief in the welfare state, balanced view towards tax and the economy.
Swing voters (7%) Mixture of views. Support an equal society, internationalist outlook, hard stance on benefits, support a low tax economy
New Britain (6%) Open capitalist economy, pro-immigration, pro-single market, supportive of low tax economy. Business friendly, internationalist, compassionate view of society
Free Liberals (7%) Strong faith in the market, little interest in socially conservative ideas. Strongly pro-business, the most opposed to the welfare state. The most personally optimistic.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
The reality of this election is that Swing voters, New Britains and perhaps even Free Liberals will likely vote Tory.
Mr. 43, I agree, but the Lib Dems need to make a more significant change which is to realise their first job is to beat Labour. The country isn't leftwing enough for two lefty parties to be the top two. They need to realise the reds are their rivals, not their special friends in a rainbow alliance of progressive chums.
The political landscape has changed so much the Lib Dems need to reposition. During an election campaign isn't a good time to do it, to be fair to Tim Farron. You will lose your old supporters faster than you can convince new supporters to come on board. I think they need to move to a ticket that is firmly internationalist, connected and which embraces the modern world. Somewhat returning to Liberal roots in the 19th century. Broadly similar to the CDU in Germany and Emmanuel Macron in France, spaces both the Conservative and Labour parties used to hold but have largely abandoned
Chelyabinsk came up with this analysis of centre politics in a previous thread. It identifies eight political tribes: Democratic Socialists and Community - worth 13% of the electorate and Labour core; Common Sense and Our Community - worth 50% of the electorate and claimed by May Conservatism. The remaining four tribes would be amenable to a rebranded Lib Dems and are worth a total of 31% of the electorate. (Both the distinctions between the tribes and their relative weights are fluid). They are:
Progressives (11%) Open, internationalist and inclusive view of Britain, comfortable with immigration. Belief in the welfare state, balanced view towards tax and the economy.
Swing voters (7%) Mixture of views. Support an equal society, internationalist outlook, hard stance on benefits, support a low tax economy
New Britain (6%) Open capitalist economy, pro-immigration, pro-single market, supportive of low tax economy. Business friendly, internationalist, compassionate view of society
Free Liberals (7%) Strong faith in the market, little interest in socially conservative ideas. Strongly pro-business, the most opposed to the welfare state. The most personally optimistic.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
I'm sick and tired of hearing things From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics All I want is the TRuth Just gimme some TRuth I've had enough of reading things By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians All I want is the TRuth Just gimme some TRuth
Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk: - Likely Con Dumfries & Galloway: - Leaning Con Aberdeen W + K - Leaning Con Perth & N Perthshire: - Likely SNP Moray: - Too close to Call Aberdeen South: - Too close to call Stirling: - Leaning SNP Edinburgh SW: - Too close to call East Lothian: - Likely SNP Renfrew E: - Too close to Call Angus: - Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
- 1 'Likely Con', 2 'Leaning Con', 5 TCTC and 3 Likely SNP
Lib Dem Dunbartonshire East: Too close to call Edinburgh West: Too close to call Fife North East: Too close to call Caithness: Too close to call Ross Skye: Too close to call Gordon: Too close to call Argyll & Bute: Too close to call Aberdeen W : - Leaning Con
7 TCTC and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
Labour: Renfrew E: Too close to call Edinburgh N & Leith: Leaning Lab East Lothian: Likely SNP Paisley & Ren S: Likely SNP Aberdeen S: Too close to call Edinburgh SW: Too close to call Dumfries & G: Leaning Con Rutherglen: Likely SNP Ochil & S Perth: Too close to call
1 Leaning Lab, 4 TCTC 3 Likely SNP and 1 Leaning Con (see above)
So, 3 Con 'likely/leaning', , 1 Leaning Lab and 13 Too close to call......
That's pretty much the same result I got after 15 mins with excel a couple of weeks ago. All the Con too close to calls were on the Con gain side.
So all to play for - on both sides! Could be a great night for SCON.....or not......
I hope that fewer than 5 Con MPs are returned from north of the border. The smaller May's majority, the better.
We have different fish to fry in Scotland, haddock instead of cod, and different priorities. I will be cheering any SLAB or Lib Dem gains north of the border almost as loudly as the Tory ones.
Thank goodness that the SCons have almost entirely absorbed Scottish kipperdom so you're not in the awkward (though admittedly unlikely) position of hoping for UKIP success.
True, there are limits even for me.
Did you vote Labour last time round ? SNP looks a forgone conclusion in Dundee this time I guess with Labour nowhere near so no need to even consider it this time.
The political landscape has changed so much the Lib Dems need to reposition. During an election campaign isn't a good time to do it, to be fair to Tim Farron. You will lose your old supporters faster than you can convince new supporters to come on board. I think they need to move to a ticket that is firmly internationalist, connected and which embraces the modern world. Somewhat returning to Liberal roots in the 19th century. Broadly similar to the CDU in Germany and Emmanuel Macron in France, spaces both the Conservative and Labour parties used to hold but have largely abandoned
Chelyabinsk came up with this analysis of centre politics in a previous thread. It identifies eight political tribes: Democratic Socialists and Community - worth 13% of the electorate and Labour core; Common Sense and Our Community - worth 50% of the electorate and claimed by May Conservatism. The remaining four tribes would be amenable to a rebranded Lib Dems and are worth a total of 31% of the electorate. (Both the distinctions between the tribes and their relative weights are fluid). They are:
Progressives (11%) Open, internationalist and inclusive view of Britain, comfortable with immigration. Belief in the welfare state, balanced view towards tax and the economy.
Swing voters (7%) Mixture of views. Support an equal society, internationalist outlook, hard stance on benefits, support a low tax economy
New Britain (6%) Open capitalist economy, pro-immigration, pro-single market, supportive of low tax economy. Business friendly, internationalist, compassionate view of society
Free Liberals (7%) Strong faith in the market, little interest in socially conservative ideas. Strongly pro-business, the most opposed to the welfare state. The most personally optimistic.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
The reality of this election is that Swing voters, New Britains and perhaps even Free Liberals will likely vote Tory.
The reality of this election is that Swing voters, New Britains and perhaps even Free Liberals will likely vote Tory.
They don't have anyone to vote for because the Libs Dems aren't currently the internationalist party I suggest they should become. Meanwhile Labour is no longer the party of Blair; the Conservatives are no longer the party of Cameron, or to some extent Thatcher, in terms of an internationalist outlook.
The political landscape has changed so much the Lib Dems need to reposition. During an election campaign isn't a good time to do it, to be fair to Tim Farron. You will lose your old supporters faster than you can convince new supporters to come on board. I think they need to move to a ticket that is firmly internationalist, connected and which embraces the modern world. Somewhat returning to Liberal roots in the 19th century. Broadly similar to the CDU in Germany and Emmanuel Macron in France, spaces both the Conservative and Labour parties used to hold but have largely abandoned
Chelyabinsk came up with this analysis of centre politics in a previous thread. It identifies eight political tribes: Democratic Socialists and Community - worth 13% of the electorate and Labour core; Common Sense and Our Community - worth 50% of the electorate and claimed by May Conservatism. The remaining four tribes would be amenable to a rebranded Lib Dems and are worth a total of 31% of the electorate. (Both the distinctions between the tribes and their relative weights are fluid). They are:
Progressives (11%) Open, internationalist and inclusive view of Britain, comfortable with immigration. Belief in the welfare state, balanced view towards tax and the economy.
Swing voters (7%) Mixture of views. Support an equal society, internationalist outlook, hard stance on benefits, support a low tax economy
New Britain (6%) Open capitalist economy, pro-immigration, pro-single market, supportive of low tax economy. Business friendly, internationalist, compassionate view of society
Free Liberals (7%) Strong faith in the market, little interest in socially conservative ideas. Strongly pro-business, the most opposed to the welfare state. The most personally optimistic.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
The reality of this election is that Swing voters, New Britains and perhaps even Free Liberals will likely vote Tory.
Exactly. I'd put myself slap bang in the middle of those descriptions (minus the single market bit under NB. I can't see why that's been added). I'd self-identify as a FL from that list.
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
I'm sick and tired of hearing things From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics All I want is the TRuth Just gimme some TRuth I've had enough of reading things By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians All I want is the TRuth Just gimme some TRuth
I hope if he were still with us that John would still be fighting the good fight.
Keep you doped with religion, and sex, and T.V. And you think you're so clever and classless and free But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see A working class hero is something to be A working class hero is something to be
I’m sure that LAB and the LDs will seek to make a UKIP pull-out in key general election seats an argument to try to get tactical voting for the contender most able to beat the Conservative. Mike Smithson
And I'm just as sure they won't. A general election is a different kettle of fish from a by-election where parties can focus on the minutiae of the seat.
It sounds like you don't believe that tactical voting happens, that must have an impact on your betting chances.
Labour better hope too much tactical voting doesn't take place, see Street/Simon LD 2nd prefs and May/Corbyn splits with ALL other parties in the supplementals.
Maybe. The point I was making is that tactical voting does take place, it's inevitable in FPTP elections.
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
Or is a victim of autocorrect who was typing too fast to notice.
The autocorrects I've experienced all seem to correct spelling rather than punctuation. In any case If you're a pol playing with sectarian fire, I'd have hoped you might be extra careful with the message you're trying to get over.
Could some of the PB experts clarify whether TRuthy is functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding how to place a comma, or does she actually think 'simply seeking peace is offensive to anyone who's worn the uniform'?
Or is a victim of autocorrect who was typing too fast to notice.
The autocorrects I've experienced all seem to correct spelling rather than punctuation. In any case If you're a pol playing with sectarian fire, I'd have hoped you might be extra careful with the message you're trying to get over.
Having read what you read more carefully, are you really saying that what Corbyn did was 'simply seeking peace'? He wanted the IRA to win. He voted against the Good Friday agreement. This is not a sectarian point surely?
That's right. This election was a real opportunity for the LDs. Led by a different leader, they would have a much better shot.
In fact, the Labour Party has much to be pleased about.
They won’t win the election, and they will haemorrhage MPs, but there are some big silver linings. UKIP and the LibDems have shown themselves unable or unwilling to replace Labour (with the WWC and the metropolitan left, respectively).
We do now know that the Labour Party will be back one day.
It will survive the election in one piece. And it will survive the ensuing Civil War.
Comments
Last week I tipped on here Edouard Philippe at 4.1 (and Idrac at 4.3), he is now 1.01 on Betfair.
He is treated as an absolute certainty by French media this morning but the announcement has been delayed now by around two hours...
I took the opportunity of cashing out at 1.02 and it's still possible to do so at 1.05.
Hospital computers all seem to be working, just a bit slow booting as they all upgrade...
I assume we've got a new ICM/Guardian poll coming up later?
I got blocked for asking him how he felt that was working out.
Post Macron inauguration what are you early impressions for the parliamentary elections ?
I suspect that whatever claims to the contrary he makes, Farron is a lot more anti-Tory than anti-Labour, and can't stomach doing what would be electorally best for his party.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
Thanks also for your invaluable assistance with the Presidency betting. That was a nice little earner for me, although it was largely down to laying Le Pen rather than backing Macron. I always thought there was a danger he may not make the run-off, whereas I just couldn't see any route to victory for her.
Bien fait, mon vieux!
Fascinated by the Ashcroft Scots marginals info.... Ochil a target before Banff? Seems highly unlikely to me (not that id expect either going blue this time as it stands)
I have it on good authority (Diane Abbott) that :
b+a = 500bn
Where b = bollocks and a = arseholes and 500bn will be votes cast for Labour on 8th June.
My current forecast would be En marche as the biggest party but probably not with an overall majority.
I enjoy contributing to this site every 5 years...
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
Keep up the quinquennial work ....
His view ... "As long as Juncker and Selmayr are involved in the negotiations, they will be confrontational and go nowhere."
And then we had OGH's 'Why is May campaigning in a constituency with an 8,000 Conservative majority' tweet during May's trip to Cornwall - which suggests to me that LibDems had bought into the theory that the Conservative leadership was concerned about their 2015 gains from the LibDems.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/particular-problems-kfvpjfcwj
Besides, as the 2016 F1 results indicate, better to have winning tips every so often than a surfeit of losing ones on a more frequent basis.
Durham 2017 LibDems 14 councillors
Northumberland 2008 LibDems 26 councillors
Northumberland 2017 LibDems 3 councillors
Derbyshire 2009 LibDems 8 councillors
Derbyshire 2017 LibDems 3 councillors
So that leave 3 vulnerable LibDem seats to the Conservatives. I would be very surprised if Brake hung on in Carshalton. In Southport there's a decent sized UKIP vote to hoover up, and Pugh is standing down, so that's a probably loss too. North Norfolk is a bit harder: it's a Leave seat, but Con + 66% of UKIP only just exceeds the 2015 LibDem vote total. If Lamb is able to grab a few of theex-UKIPpers, he probably hangs on. I'd make him the marginal favourite.
Richmond-upon-Thames, were it any other Conservative candidate, would be an easy gain. Still, a likely Conservative gain.
I reckon, therefore, the LDs will keep 6/7 of their existing seats.
(Edit to add: didn't notice you are using 2008/9 numbers. Which makes it a meaningless comparison. The question is not "are the LDs at 2008/9 levels, where they were in the mid 20s nationally", but "have they recovered, even slightly, from where they were during the coalition". My position is that they have recovered somewhat, and that they will get around 12% in the General Election on June 9th, and will probably end up with 12-14 seats.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Rhine-Westphalia_state_election,_2017
Laughable.
It was by faisal Islam. Surprise surprise
Oh, and the only examples given were the Tories bigger than UNS gains in 2015 and Trump. Message undertone very clear.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/15/andrew-murrays-greatest-hits/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4505600/Jeremy-Corbyn-REFUSES-acknowledge-wealthy.html
But not in the long-term.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/864035126807867392
Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire all had net losses in LibDem councillors as did Cornwall if you count what they went into the election holding rather than the 2013 total.
Also down in Nottinghamshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Essex, Suffolk, North Yorkshire and probably some other places as well.
Is there a single county where the LibDems can point to and say "Look at X, didn't we do well there" ?
I was debating this point the other day with a Labour MP and we both thought there was something in what OGH/Stephen Fisher say. There are definitely some Lab 2010 - UKIP 2015 voters who would never vote Conservative. The Yorkshire Party might surprise a little amongst such voters, given their antipathy to Corbyn. (Never mind their manifesto!)
There is actually a name for some of the things that crop up in voting polls called social desirability bias - that is people underreport less socially desirable behaviour to even online polls.
This got me thinking what is less socially desirable
- people who didn't actually vote last time are saying they did vote and more likely to be represented in the Labour UKIP figure
- to say you voted for a secondary party in areas of predominance I.e. other than SNP in Scotland, Labour in North, Conservatives in South
- public sector workers saying that they will vote conservative
There could also be an opposite for lib-dems as they were very undesirable last time due to coalition
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/863667317623984128
The SPD are struggling badly to gain traction and the likely re-entry of the FDP into the Bundestag should see Merkel comfortably home and dry.
There will be some jobs, and supply chains, that cease to make sense once the UK has left the EU. However, the fundamental attractions of the UK will remain and there will be new opportunities created through new trade deals, and flexibility of applying an independent regulatory regime.
But these will take time to come to fruition, and loss aversion is a very powerful emotion.
Mike Smithson
And I'm just as sure they won't. A general election is a different kettle of fish from a by-election where parties can focus on the minutiae of the seat.
1. Are there any "coach tapes" that Don Valley punters should be worried about?
2. What size are your hands?
3. Do you sport a comb-over?
4. What are your property holdings in Russia?
5. Will your election address contain fake news or bar charts?
Or at any point since?
Chelyabinsk came up with this analysis of centre politics in a previous thread. It identifies eight political tribes: Democratic Socialists and Community - worth 13% of the electorate and Labour core; Common Sense and Our Community - worth 50% of the electorate and claimed by May Conservatism. The remaining four tribes would be amenable to a rebranded Lib Dems and are worth a total of 31% of the electorate. (Both the distinctions between the tribes and their relative weights are fluid). They are:
Progressives (11%) Open, internationalist and inclusive view of Britain, comfortable with immigration. Belief in the welfare state, balanced view towards tax and the economy.
Swing voters (7%) Mixture of views. Support an equal society, internationalist outlook, hard stance on benefits, support a low tax economy
New Britain (6%) Open capitalist economy, pro-immigration, pro-single market, supportive of low tax economy. Business friendly, internationalist, compassionate view of society
Free Liberals (7%) Strong faith in the market, little interest in socially conservative ideas. Strongly pro-business, the most opposed to the welfare state. The most personally optimistic.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/05/nadhim-zahawi-a-message-from-labour-voters-in-my-seat-that-ive-nemessage-fromlabour-voters-in-my-seat-that-ive-never-heard-before-theyre-backing-a-conservative-prime-minister.html
But, that's history now.
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the TRuth
Just gimme some TRuth
I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the TRuth
Just gimme some TRuth
FFS strikes again!
***NEW POLL***
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-poll-survation-idUKKCN18B0ST
Con 48%
Lab 30%
Lib 8%
UKIP 4%
I'd never dream of voting yellow though.
Keep you doped with religion, and sex, and T.V.
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
The point I was making is that tactical voting does take place, it's inevitable in FPTP elections.
Practice what you preach!
They won’t win the election, and they will haemorrhage MPs, but there are some big silver linings. UKIP and the LibDems have shown themselves unable or unwilling to replace Labour (with the WWC and the metropolitan left, respectively).
We do now know that the Labour Party will be back one day.
It will survive the election in one piece. And it will survive the ensuing Civil War.