Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forgot the overall GE2017 main party vote totals – it is CON &
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forgot the overall GE2017 main party vote totals – it is CON & LAB’s relationship with each other that matters
Just a month to the day after the extraordinary general election many Tories, particularly those still loyal to the woman who caused their electoral disaster, continue to point to the overall 13.6m CON votes that were chalked up as though that had some great meaning.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What a way to go...
Two retired miners sat on the beach in Benidorm...
'You know what day it is today? Durham Miners’ Gala.'
'They've got a decent day for it!'
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
"Ignore the voters- May is rubbish"
That means that under PR, other parties still deserve ~70 seats more than they actually won. Tories should have ~270, Labour 260 out of 650.
Enough on the centre/left for Lab/Lib.Dem/Green/SNP to form a fragile coalition. Leave would probably mean negotiate custom terms on a par with Norway or Switzerland. These two countries, remember, have never been 'in' but aren't as far 'out' as the govt. of 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' want the UK to be.
Arlene Foster would still be an obscure N.Ireland MP with a dodgy record on the misuse of public money.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
F1: surprised that match bets are up but not the classified markets (to be, or not to be. The under/over is up already).
Look at the difference between Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair.
I think all three would have win the 1997 general election but would Neil Kinnock really have achieved the same majority as Blair?
If Kinnock had been leading Labour in 1997 I think the Lab majority would probably have been under 50 seats.
John Smith would probably have gotten over 50 seats but fewer than 100.
The idea that Corbyn can cut through the kind of seats that Blair won in 97 is pretty far-fetched.
Of course if Corbyn goes and someone else takes over we'll have to revise but at this stage Coryn is far too divisive (toxic) with large swathes of the electorate to even consider a landslide for Labour.
What was most noticeable this election was the generational split. Labour won the young overwhelmingly. The Conservatives the elderly overwhelmingly. That means both sides have a lot to lose if the other side eats into their respective age group, or if their respective age group fails to turn out.
If the Conservatives manage to make homeowning a feasible prospect for young people, they could do that. They should do that by building houses, reducing low skilled immigration, and creating a new savings account that allows people to save for a home from their pre-tax, pre-student loan salary. Perhaps they could also modify the student loan system, rename it a graduate tax, and make people feel less anxious about all that 'debt'.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to eat into the old vote. At least not with an unreconstructed socialist that wants to take us back to the 1970s.
Brexit would have to be a conspicuous and immediate sucess and May a titan in order to win. Politics are especially febrile at the moment, so anything can happen, but on current form Lab will have a 2005 sized majority at least. Cable was always languid when younger so cannot see my party doing better than tread water.
Isn't the idea to swap Vince for Swinson before the election as well?
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...
If they're not up soon I might have to finish off and post the pre-race ramble tomorrow morning instead.
Running Trump's daughter might take out some of the fear of voting for the Republican Presidential candidate for Suburban voters.
The lack of administrative and legislative understanding of someone from outside the political world is going to kill the non politician President as a concept.
Populist politics tends to burn itself out quickly after assuming power, as its simplistic errors accumulate. It is why Jezza will only win one term, before an astute but more conventional approach for the following election.
I'm off now, and will check again tomorrow to see if they're up. So, the pre-race ramble should be up tomorrow morning.
No - obviously Mike Smithson is right that the most important thing is the difference between the vote shares of the main parties, not the absolute values.
There will almost certainly be a somebody. How successful will that somebody be, though?
Are you saying you can use statistics to prove they're more likely to be successful than the somebody in 2064, or 2072?
I don't understand how that's possible.
I'm saying the absolute vote shares are meaningless, because the minor party votes have changed. You were the one who made a comparison with 1992 - remember?
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest