Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Breaking the chain. Can the Lib Dems defy history?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Breaking the chain. Can the Lib Dems defy history?
The opinion polls have obscured the view of what’s happening in the election rather than clarifying it. But bettors remain convinced of the following:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think low teens might be possible. But my guess would be around 6-9 seats.
Corbyn has replaced her with someone who thought he was rather crap.
Labour party 2017
But you can back the LDs on the exchange at 2.1
It's risky as it's pissing off a lot of members on the ground who have worked all year round trying to build up local support only to see that work flushed down the pan when the election arrives.
I voted for Tim Farron as leader but as a national leader he simply doesn't work. Norman Lamb is a much better performer on TV and I'm hopeful that his personal appeal will save him in North Norfolk...although I doubt it
"There are no obvious reasons to presume that seats that the Lib Dems have a special interest in are going to differ particularly from the par."
There is one obvious reason, and that is Brexit.
The Lib Dems' focus on Brexit appears to have cut no ice in 640 seats. But that's not to say that it has bombed absolutely everywhere.
Cambridge, OxWAb, Twickenham, even Vauxhall are places where the Lib Dem message could work. I don't know whether it has or not: I can see the Lib Dems coming out of this with anywhere between 4 and 18 seats. But it's too early - a day and a half too early, to be precise - to predict a wipe-out with any certainty.
I'm betting on a substantial Tory majority. You always get a mood sense out there when things change are there simply isn't one for Corbyn.
The polls are, again, in for a very bad night.
The law is sometimes the only protection we have against inept or malicious politicians.
The number of Labour signs and posters up in the city is double that of 2015.
@BBCEleanorG
Replying to @bbclaurak
The period of Diane Abbott being replaced is ‘indefinite’ the BBC understands - from @bbclaurak
If Labour splits would the SDP go "back home" to Labour?
WHINING HERE
...............................
That said if the English yellow peril are able to exercise the ruthless efficiency of their Scottish counterparts it's possible that their 8-10% of the vote will yield unexpected results. The 5-7% in Scotland may bring in 4 seats - O&S.. EdinW, .. FifeNE .. E Dumb.
South of the border a mix of W & L .. Hallam .. Leeds NW .. Norfolk N .. Cambridge .. Twikenham .. C & W .. Kingston .. Bath .. Eastbourne .. Ox W & A .. Ceredigion.
A range of 6-12 in entirely reasonable.
Worthy of note that the PM was in Cheltenham yesterday.
George burns more bridges with the conservatives
GOWNBPM
He's finished in the Conservative party.
https://twitter.com/talkradio/status/872379844348305409
Historically, immediate post-election defeats seem to be a good time for political parties to undergo massive internal fights and wobbles
A hung parliament, double figure Dem seats, ukip 10% but no seats and I'm broke
After the devastation of 2015 Farron struggles to get a hearing. He is not called every week in PMQs, the involvement of Lib Dems in the committee system (outside the HoL) is minimal, you no longer have Lib Dem spokesmen on R5L as a matter of course and they simply do not seem relevant.
Don't get me wrong, Farron has been very poor but I do think comparing what he has achieved against Clegg is comparing apples and oranges. He tried to make a play for the 48% which was a bold enough move but this election has been far less about Brexit than anyone thought or it probably should have been given implementation of that is the biggest peace time challenge in some time.
As it is I agree with Alastair that it is hard to see a net gain on their current position and some losses seem inevitable. The problem of being heard or relevance is not going to be any easier for the next leader. I had hoped that they would be a sane alternative to a Labour party that has lost the plot. The Corbyn surge, whatever happens in seats, has ensured that will not happen.
Everyone on here is convinced of a CONS OM, some with forecasts as high as 100+ majority. Such a view might induce complacency in CONS voters, meaning they may not actually get out and vote. They need to be shaken up to get them out to the polling station, which the CONS effort has been focused on doing these past few days, and which this seems to be doing also.
And you criticise.
Labour's Barry Gardiner just told me: "I have been told that Diane [Abbott] has been diagnosed with a serious, long-term condition"
If true, all the best for her, she didn't look like she could cope for a while.
I don't know whether that is being unduly pessimistic.
I will be going back to voting Con this time now that they have got rid of that poison called Osborne
of course it will make bugger all difference as Stratford on Avon is one of the safest tory seats in the country
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/boris-guaranteed-to-bring-the-house-down-and-not-get-buried-rubble-marina-hyde
On a side note I expect the papers today have gone big on Jezza the terrorist, tomorrow they will go big on Brexit, and no doubt we will see The Iron Lady 2 on the white cliffs splashed over The Sun's front page. Today the press give their readers a reason to not vote Corbyn, tomorrow they give them a reason to vote May.
I could see 1 seat being plausible.
I could see 18 seats being plausible.
God only knows. The Lib Dems have targetted ruthlessly this time around and are up to more members than ever - concentrating their record number of activists into a small number of seats to try to fight the tide.
It may work. It may not. Personally, I'd stay out of the Lib Dem seat market and look to the bigger fight. Or identify a particular seat that's either held or targetted and try to use local knowledge to see if the odds are wrong.
That calculation is driven entirely by the switch of former Kippers to the Tories which has increased the Tory share. LibDem vote share is basically static compared with 2015.
The question is - in Con/LD marginals, is the UKIP vote so significant so that the switch from UKIP makes a material difference?
Not in Richmond Park. In fact the UKIP effect is in the opposite direction from the by election. UKIP didn't stand in the by election but they are standing in this election so they will take some votes off Zac. The notional national par swing from Lib Dems to the Conservatives of 3% is totally irrelevant.
I'll have a look at the UKIP vote in the other Con/LD marginals to see if they are sufficiently significant.
Arguing from the general to the particular (national share to individual seat) is dangerous.
The national share is the result of lots of individual seats. That is the direction of the causation.
I believe, from the local circumstances, that the LibDems will get at least 10 seats and wouldn't bet against it at evens.
I have however covered LD all the way up to 29 seats so I can relax there, unless we are in the mirror universe.
telling the London electorate that the Tories could lose is just as likely to give ammo to their opponents
Osbrown is trying to ride two horses on this one, but believe what you will
It helped him finish third in a two horse race.
Con supporter: Oh Sh*t. [votes at 07.01 am]
I will give my personal more detailed forecast FWIW later today but the only Lib Dem seat I see as under serious threat is Leeds N W and there I am hopeful that Greg Mulholland's personal vote will help him hold on .
He'll like this one then as it's actually in the guy's brief...
https://twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/872384748806709248
Thats contrary to everything on tge ground from both sides....
Baldrick strikes again
Thank you for having the confidence to vote for us which will mean we have a strong and stable platform for the forthcoming BREXIT negotiations. But I would also like to say that, having toured around the country during the campaign, we hear the concerns of ordinary working people. We hear that they want more investment in the health service, in education, yes [deadly serious], and the security services also.
Now that you have given us a mandate, we promise to continue to make the UK strong economically because it is only with a strong economy that we can indeed allocate resources where they are most needed; it is only with a strong economy that we can continue to support the NHS, it is only with a strong economy that we can continue to support our schools, it is only with a strong economy that we can continue to suport our public services. We promise to listen to those concerns and...blah, blah...