In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
Heath in February 1974 called a snap general election and not only lost seats but power too as Wilson won more seats, Attlee in 1950 went from a landslide to a bare majority at all. I will grant you snap elections rarely work with the exception of Wilson 1966 but despite the EU referendum leading to a Leave vote the endless Remoaning that May's strategy on Brexit 'was not what people voted for' meant we probably needed a general election to work out whether we wanted soft or hard Brexit, the main soft Brexit party, the LDs, went from 8% to 7%
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
Blair was a fresh faced charismatic moderate in 1997 fighting his first general election as leader, in 1992 Kinnock was a left-wing populist who had already lost the last general election. Which is closer to now?
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
Garbage, Captain Mannering is showing her true colours, hob nobbing with sectarians, getting army positions against the rules , a fat windbag who will crash and burn pretty quickly.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
According to Yougov's most recent crossbreak for Scotland, Labour are on 36% there - 5% ahead of the SNP . The Tories are on 25%.
Labour returning to the largest party in Scotland seems to me about as certain as anything can be in this topsy turvey world we now live in. Is there a market that reflects that?
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
If recent years have taught us anything it should be that those sort of predictions are pretty stupid.
I contend that it was not stupid to suggest that the SNP could not maintain 56 out of 59 Westminster seats while at the same time being in power in Holyrood. I'd contend that it was just common sense.
But didn't SNP losses far exceed most 'worst case' scenarios? Let alone the roll call of the SNP great & good turfed out by the electorate....and those surviving on wafer thin majorities.....
Some of us did suggest post -May 4th local elections that the SNP would struggle to win 40 seats and that Labour could end up with 4 or 5.
They probably have enough runs. They need a quick middle order thrash to get another 100 if they are being cautious but the fact that the wicket is now getting challenging can only be good news.
I know the comedy of the headline was supposed to be Trump meeting Putin, but (aside from the obvious trolling), does Putin even have an approval rating?
Does anyone conduct opinion polls and ratings in countries that are not free and fair democracies (and if they did, what would be the point)?
Yes, Russians mostly seem to like him, though they're not so sure about Government policy in general. A reasonably credible analysis here:
It's obvious why they like him. The country has experienced little but decline since the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the loss of large parts of what was their country. Imagine that British governments had lost Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that successive PMs were seen as incompetent, alcoholic, corrupt or all three. Along comes someone who speaks coherently, is not obviously corrupt, regains some territory and gets a hearing on the international stage. Of course they think he's an improvement. Yes, he's tiresomely macho, not addressing the economic fundamentals and distinctly dodgy on social issues, but none of these are popularity-killers in Russia.
And he also has his enemies murdered, but that seemingly isnt a popularitg killer in Russia either!
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
An interesting 'what if' is what if May waits to see the results of the May local elections before calling a general election - as Thatcher did in 1983 and 1987.
With the hammering Labour received in May (plus possibly the loss of Manchester Gorton to the LibDems) there would have been renewed pressure on Corbyn.
Plus the Conservatives would have had a bit longer to get their manifesto properly prepared.
but she chose to implement Art 50 too early to have waited much longer. Its already getting periliously close to the deadline!
But there was no prevailing Conservative narrative by June 8: by election day this had long since dissipated. A lot of May's poor ratings are the result of Tory voters who will vote Tory next time but cannot forgive her for losing the Tory majority to Jeremy Corbyn who they will never vote for. In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity. The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees. Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
According to Yougov's most recent crossbreak for Scotland, Labour are on 36% there - 5% ahead of the SNP . The Tories are on 25%.
Labour returning to the largest party in Scotland seems to me about as certain as anything can be in this topsy turvey world we now live in. Is there a market that reflects that?
Bookmakers are generally reluctant to put up markets which will not be resolved for 4 years or more. At the same time there are very few punters ready to tie up their cash for such a long period.
Apart from that I think that your analysis is correct.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
This clinging onto the 42% motion is a nonsense. Everything depends on the relationship with Labour as I suggested in my previous thread.
42% is no big deal when UKIP, the LDs and Greens have seen such vote losses
But there was no prevailing Conservative narrative by June 8: by election day this had long since dissipated. A lot of May's poor ratings are the result of Tory voters who will vote Tory next time but cannot forgive her for losing the Tory majority to Jeremy Corbyn who they will never vote for. In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity. The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees. Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
Why the assumption corbyn will be a disaster as PM?
Everyone seemed to think he would be a disaster as leader for the last election..
What if he turns out to be a very popular PM and wins a second term?
According to Yougov's most recent crossbreak for Scotland, Labour are on 36% there - 5% ahead of the SNP . The Tories are on 25%.
Labour returning to the largest party in Scotland seems to me about as certain as anything can be in this topsy turvey world we now live in. Is there a market that reflects that?
Bookmakers are generally reluctant to put up markets which will not be resolved for 4 years or more. At the same time there are very few punters ready to tie up their cash for such a long period.
Apart from that I think that your analysis is correct.
The next Holyrood elections do seem an awfully long way away. Can't see Nicola doing a May either.
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
TMay called an unnecessary election in order to secure a bigger majority. She ended up without one at all. That says FAILURE. It also meant that she ceased to have a mandate for her Brexit strategy. She's more than a lame duck but a corpse blocking the road as a Speccie writer observed yesterday
She called an election for two reasons. The first was to get a bigger majority. The second was to get an extra two years of Conservative governance, giving more breathing space after Brexit. She has achieved one of two goals, so a mixed result.
No. She has achieved neither. The MayDup concoction is unlikely to last 5 years. Even if it doesn't collapse post Brexit, May is likely to be dumped by the end of 2019 and a new Tory leader would probably wish to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
TMay called an unnecessary election in order to secure a bigger majority. She ended up without one at all. That says FAILURE. It also meant that she ceased to have a mandate for her Brexit strategy. She's more than a lame duck but a corpse blocking the road as a Speccie writer observed yesterday
She called an election for two reasons. The first was to get a bigger majority. The second was to get an extra two years of Conservative governance, giving more breathing space after Brexit. She has achieved one of two goals, so a mixed result.
But there was no prevailing Conservative narrative by June 8: by election day this had long since dissipated. A lot of May's poor ratings are the result of Tory voters who will vote Tory next time but cannot forgive her for losing the Tory majority to Jeremy Corbyn who they will never vote for. In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity. The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees. Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
Why the assumption corbyn will be a disaster as PM?
Everyone seemed to think he would be a disaster as leader for the last election..
What if he turns out to be a very popular PM and wins a second term?
I think that quite possible, as he will take power after the crash and benefit from the bounce. Additionally, the spending will have short term benefits and long term costs. A second Labour term is very viable.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
Heath in February 1974 called a snap general election and not only lost seats but power too as Wilson won more seats, Attlee in 1950 went from a landslide to a bare majority at all. I will grant you snap elections rarely work with the exception of Wilson 1966 but despite the EU referendum leading to a Leave vote the endless Remoaning that May's strategy on Brexit 'was not what people voted for' meant we probably needed a general election to work out whether we wanted soft or hard Brexit, the main soft Brexit party, the LDs, went from 8% to 7%
IIRC Wilson’s 1966 call wasn’t a snap. It had been widely trailed that he would go to the countryt when he thpought he could get a bigger majority. Health in Feb 74 was very much on a par with May, which is why neither she or any other Tory should ask us to vote again for a bit! Wilson in Oct 74 did very little better than he had in February.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
1983 and 1966 and 2015 were also exceptions and in 1992 and 1987 and 2001 the governing party's voteshare was barely changed from the previous general election
But there was no prevailing Conservative narrative by June 8: by election day this had long since dissipated. A lot of May's poor ratings are the result of Tory voters who will vote Tory next time but cannot forgive her for losing the Tory majority to Jeremy Corbyn who they will never vote for. In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity. The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees. Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
Why the assumption corbyn will be a disaster as PM?
Everyone seemed to think he would be a disaster as leader for the last election..
What if he turns out to be a very popular PM and wins a second term?
There is a difference between losing slightly better than expected because you are a good campaigner and governing the country effectively on a hard Brexit and socialist platform
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
In 1987 the Tories got 42%, in 1992 after 5 years in power they got 41.9%
In GB the Tories polled 43.3% in 1987 and 42.8% in 1992.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
This clinging onto the 42% motion is a nonsense. Everything depends on the relationship with Labour as I suggested in my previous thread.
42% is no big deal when UKIP, the LDs and Greens have seen such vote losses
42% is a big deal if the Tories can hold onto it as Major held onto Thatcher's 42% from 1987 in 1992, the decline of the minor parties is even more significant as Corbyn unlike Kinnock in 1992 has fewer votes from the other parties to squeeze
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
Heath in February 1974 called a snap general election and not only lost seats but power too as Wilson won more seats, Attlee in 1950 went from a landslide to a bare majority at all. I will grant you snap elections rarely work with the exception of Wilson 1966 but despite the EU referendum leading to a Leave vote the endless Remoaning that May's strategy on Brexit 'was not what people voted for' meant we probably needed a general election to work out whether we wanted soft or hard Brexit, the main soft Brexit party, the LDs, went from 8% to 7%
IIRC Wilson’s 1966 call wasn’t a snap. It had been widely trailed that he would go to the countryt when he thpought he could get a bigger majority. Health in Feb 74 was very much on a par with May, which is why neither she or any other Tory should ask us to vote again for a bit! Wilson in Oct 74 did very little better than he had in February.
Yes the Tories will hold out until 2022 for the next general election
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
In 1987 the Tories got 42%, in 1992 after 5 years in power they got 41.9%
In GB the Tories polled 43.3% in 1987 and 42.8% in 1992.
If you insist on using GB not UK figures but as the difference was just 0.5% the point is the same
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
What an absurd comment. May won 42% of the vote and 318 seats, apart from Cameron no Tory leader has got anywhere near that since Thatcher and Major
But the key point is that the Tory lead in the popular vote was a mere 2.5% despite having enjoyed an advantage of close to 20% at the outset of the election campaign. Thatcher's smallest lead was 7.1% in 1979 with Major still managing a 7.6% lead in 1992.Under Cameron the Tories ended up with leads of 7.3% and 6.6% in 2010 & 2015 respectively.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
FWIW, I think May has been oversold, and her ratings will recover a bit. The normal opponents to any Tory PM have been reinforced by Tories who are shocked that she didn't win plus Tories who rather fancy being PM themselves, so there's a broad spectrum of the political world that has a reason to rubbish her. She's only a moderately competent commuinicator but she doesn't keep making Boris-like gaffes and in quiet times she'd make a adequate administrator.
The problems for her, and Britain, are (a) these are not quiet times and we need a Government with a clear direction on Bexit, which we don't appear to have and (b) she leads a party which has no obvious agreed purpose except a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, which is not proving sufficient to win a majority. Both are serious snags, and if the Conservatives had a candidate who could answer both points they should switch to him or her at once. Since they apparently don't, they may as well stumble on with May.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or other of the main parties is likely to lose support to a third party(/its) next time, as both look to be at close to peak support and the number of straight switchers relatively few given how polarised they both are. This will decide the next election, since polling in the low 40s% is ample for a majority under FPTnP provided your opponent is some way behind.
Before the EU Referendum is finally forgotten about, can I just remind people is was a yes/no referendum on whether to leave the EU.
We voted Yes.
We didn't vote on whether to have a another negotiation and then decide. Cameron had already done that and returned with magic beans that wouldn't grow. The upshot was that we voted to leave.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
1983 and 1966 and 2015 were also exceptions and in 1992 and 1987 and 2001 the governing party's voteshare was barely changed from the previous general election
Mike's graph started in 1970 and 2015 wasn't an exception, if you look carefully at the graph (and, anyhow, what was exceptional about it is having a junior coalition party shouldering much of the blame).
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or other of the main parties is likely to lose support to a third party(/its) next time, as both look to be at close to peak support and the number of straight switchers relatively few given how polarised they both are. This will decide the next election, since polling in the low 40s% is ample for a majority under FPTnP provided your opponent is some way behind.
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
FWIW, I think May has been oversold, and her ratings will recover a bit. The normal opponents to any Tory PM have been reinforced by Tories who are shocked that she didn't win plus Tories who rather fancy being PM themselves, so there's a broad spectrum of the political world that has a reason to rubbish her. She's only a moderately competent commuinicator but she doesn't keep making Boris-like gaffes and in quiet times she'd make a adequate administrator.
The problems for her, and Britain, are (a) these are not quiet times and we need a Government with a clear direction on Bexit, which we don't appear to have and (b) she leads a party which has no obvious agreed purpose except a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, which is not proving sufficient to win a majority. Both are serious snags, and if the Conservatives had a candidate who could answer both points they should switch to him or her at once. Since they apparently don't, they may as well stumble on with May.
Oversold? So soon after the last time?
It's possible - her personal ratings are on the floor. A modest recovery is unlikely to change the political situation one jot, though.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
Ted Heath calling the February 1974 election comes to mind!
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
Heath in February 1974 called a snap general election and not only lost seats but power too as Wilson won more seats, Attlee in 1950 went from a landslide to a bare majority at all. I will grant you snap elections rarely work with the exception of Wilson 1966 but despite the EU referendum leading to a Leave vote the endless Remoaning that May's strategy on Brexit 'was not what people voted for' meant we probably needed a general election to work out whether we wanted soft or hard Brexit, the main soft Brexit party, the LDs, went from 8% to 7%
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
Ted Heath calling the February 1974 election comes to mind!
And Atlee in 1951. The similarity between 2017 and 1974 especially is very striking. May obviously fancied her chances against historical precedent!
Before the EU Referendum is finally forgotten about, can I just remind people is was a yes/no referendum on whether to leave the EU.
We voted Yes.
We didn't vote on whether to have a another negotiation and then decide. Cameron had already done that and returned with magic beans that wouldn't grow. The upshot was that we voted to leave.
It would be a more credible argument if pro-Europeans had supported a new referendum every time the terms of EU membership changed. They noticeably did not do that for 40 years, including in one case ditching a manifesto promise to hold one.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or other of the main parties is likely to lose support to a third party(/its) next time, as both look to be at close to peak support and the number of straight switchers relatively few given how polarised they both are. This will decide the next election, since polling in the low 40s% is ample for a majority under FPTnP provided your opponent is some way behind.
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
Blair was a fresh faced charismatic moderate in 1997 fighting his first general election as leader, in 1992 Kinnock was a left-wing populist who had already lost the last general election. Which is closer to now?
Kinnock was not particularly left-wing by 1992.I suspect his major weakness was lack of gravitas - and indeed self control. Had it not been for his pop star performance at Sheffield a week before the election I suspect he would have managed a 2017 type result with Major heading a minority Tory Government supported by the UUP.
Before the EU Referendum is finally forgotten about, can I just remind people is was a yes/no referendum on whether to leave the EU.
We voted Yes.
We didn't vote on whether to have a another negotiation and then decide. Cameron had already done that and returned with magic beans that wouldn't grow. The upshot was that we voted to leave.
You make the point well. We voted to give up our membership of our 28 member club insulting our fellow members on the way out and refusing to pay outstanding fees.
So when they see May and co hanging around the doorway like incontinent tramps you wonder why they don't just move us on
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
Typically, the Opposition is not run by an entryist faction from the far left. Oppositions usually do better because they moderate politically in pursuit of power. Corbyn's Labour Party can not do that because they are ideologically committed to overthrowing capitalism.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
Look at Mike's graph in the last thread; almost always, the opposition does better than the governing party, due to the inevitability of at least some of its actions losing support. There are hardly any exceptions - Oct 74, when Labour managed to squeeze back the Liberal surge a little from February, is one of the few. And 1983 after Labour had split.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
Typically, the Opposition is not run by an entryist faction from the far left. Oppositions usually do better because they moderate politically in pursuit of power. Corbyn's Labour Party can not do that because they are ideologically committed to overthrowing capitalism.
That reminds me of many of the typical PB posts of April and May this year.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or other of the main parties is likely to lose support to a third party(/its) next time, as both look to be at close to peak support and the number of straight switchers relatively few given how polarised they both are. This will decide the next election, since polling in the low 40s% is ample for a majority under FPTnP provided your opponent is some way behind.
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I do wonder what the likes of Yvette are really thinking, stuck in a party with which they have little sympathy and zero career prospects. I think things could develop as in the 1980s where the centre left fragments.
According to Yougov's most recent crossbreak for Scotland, Labour are on 36% there - 5% ahead of the SNP . The Tories are on 25%.
Labour returning to the largest party in Scotland seems to me about as certain as anything can be in this topsy turvey world we now live in. Is there a market that reflects that?
I agree with that. Someone on UKPR has calculated that based on the most recent Yougov crossbreak the SNP would fall to just 4 seats! Labour would have 36 and the Tories 16.
Before the EU Referendum is finally forgotten about, can I just remind people is was a yes/no referendum on whether to leave the EU.
We voted Yes.
We didn't vote on whether to have a another negotiation and then decide. Cameron had already done that and returned with magic beans that wouldn't grow. The upshot was that we voted to leave.
That matters now. It won't matter quite so much in the (hypothetical future) scenario of a government and economy in disarray and a deal on offer that is widely seen as all bad news.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
a fat windbag who will crash and burn pretty quickly.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
IIRC Wilson’s 1966 call wasn’t a snap. It had been widely trailed that he would go to the countryt when he thpought he could get a bigger majority. Health in Feb 74 was very much on a par with May, which is why neither she or any other Tory should ask us to vote again for a bit! Wilson in Oct 74 did very little better than he had in February.
Yes the Tories will hold out until 2022 for the next general election
The loss of 3 or 4 by elections might unermine that prediction - in particular the willingness of the DUP to continue to prop up the Tories.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
In 1987 the Tories got 42%, in 1992 after 5 years in power they got 41.9%
In GB the Tories polled 43.3% in 1987 and 42.8% in 1992.
If you insist on using GB not UK figures but as the difference was just 0.5% the point is the same
It is what virtually all the pollsters use - Survation being an exception.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
What an absurd comment. May won 42% of the vote and 318 seats, apart from Cameron no Tory leader has got anywhere near that since Thatcher and Major
But the key point is that the Tory lead in the popular vote was a mere 2.5% despite having enjoyed an advantage of close to 20% at the outset of the election campaign. Thatcher's smallest lead was 7.1% in 1979 with Major still managing a 7.6% lead in 1992.Under Cameron the Tories ended up with leads of 7.3% and 6.6% in 2010 & 2015 respectively.
However while May's lead over Labour was smaller she had a bigger lead over the Liberals and won more Liberal seats than any of them bar Cameron in 2015 (and she gained a number of seats from the SNP he failed to win then)
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
Ted Heath calling the February 1974 election comes to mind!
And Atlee in 1951. The similarity between 2017 and 1974 especially is very striking. May obviously fancied her chances against historical precedent!
To an extent in 1951 in that Attlee did win the popular vote. Had it not been for Ulster Unionist support Churchill would have headed a minority Government following that election.
Completely OT. Lukaku going to United for £70 million!!! Somebody's taking the piss. They should get Everton to negotiate Brexit.
United also pay Rooney £10M to go to Everton, something rotten at the core of EPL.
With Maurinho and United's penchant for getting rid of players who within weeks become worth a fortune (Lukaku Kevin de Bruyne Pogba Mata etc) you wonder wher the £10 million might be the tip of the iceberg
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I do wonder what the likes of Yvette are really thinking, stuck in a party with which they have little sympathy and zero career prospects. I think things could develop as in the 1980s where the centre left fragments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
Ted Heath calling the February 1974 election comes to mind!
And Atlee in 1951. The similarity between 2017 and 1974 especially is very striking. May obviously fancied her chances against historical precedent!
To an extent in 1951 in that Attlee did win the popular vote. Had it not been for Ulster Unionist support Churchill would have headed a minority Government following that election.
Heath also won the popular vote in Feb 1974, May won the popular vote and most seats
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
In 1987 the Tories got 42%, in 1992 after 5 years in power they got 41.9%
In GB the Tories polled 43.3% in 1987 and 42.8% in 1992.
If you insist on using GB not UK figures but as the difference was just 0.5% the point is the same
It is what virtually all the pollsters use - Survation being an exception.
We have a UK Parliament not a GB one (otherwise there would have been a small Tory majority) and Survation actually got the general election result right
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
IIRC Wilson’s 1966 call wasn’t a snap. It had been widely trailed that he would go to the countryt when he thpought he could get a bigger majority. Health in Feb 74 was very much on a par with May, which is why neither she or any other Tory should ask us to vote again for a bit! Wilson in Oct 74 did very little better than he had in February.
Yes the Tories will hold out until 2022 for the next general election
The loss of 3 or 4 by elections might unermine that prediction - in particular the willingness of the DUP to continue to prop up the Tories.
From 2010 to 2015 the Tories only lost 1 by election to Labour, the other 2 lost were from Tory MPs defecting to UKIP. There is a possibility Boris takes over as Tory leader and PM after Brexit in 2019 and calls a general election then though I admit if he gets a poll bounce
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
The same thing was said after 1992 and I can even recall Conservatives comforting each other with the thought that no sensible person could vote for "Phoney Tony" (remember the devil eyes poster ?). Laughable.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
Blair was a fresh faced charismatic moderate in 1997 fighting his first general election as leader, in 1992 Kinnock was a left-wing populist who had already lost the last general election. Which is closer to now?
Kinnock was not particularly left-wing by 1992.I suspect his major weakness was lack of gravitas - and indeed self control. Had it not been for his pop star performance at Sheffield a week before the election I suspect he would have managed a 2017 type result with Major heading a minority Tory Government supported by the UUP.
Even then that would still have been a 4th consecutive Tory win
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
In 1987 the Tories got 42%, in 1992 after 5 years in power they got 41.9%
In GB the Tories polled 43.3% in 1987 and 42.8% in 1992.
If you insist on using GB not UK figures but as the difference was just 0.5% the point is the same
It is what virtually all the pollsters use - Survation being an exception.
We have a UK Parliament not a GB one (otherwise there would have been a small Tory majority) and Survation actually got the general election result right
Indeed - but is not how poll figures are normally reported.
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
Conservatives will be nearer 32% next GE after 4 years of misgovernment .
The most likely outcome is that Britain will add an experiment with hardcore socialism to its experiment with Brexit. Then, the relative deprivation suffered by Mr Corbyn’s middle-class fans will be the least of the country’s problems.
But there was no prevailing Conservative narrative by June 8: by election day this had long since dissipated. A lot of May's poor ratings are the result of Tory voters who will vote Tory next time but cannot forgive her for losing the Tory majority to Jeremy Corbyn who they will never vote for. In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity. The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees. Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
Why the assumption corbyn will be a disaster as PM?
Everyone seemed to think he would be a disaster as leader for the last election..
What if he turns out to be a very popular PM and wins a second term?
I actually think he will play it safe in his first term and probably won't do anything too radical... But the second term is the one that will be "pure" socialism" let loose.
On the other hand it depends how eager he is to get on with things... He's not getting any younger so he must decide to go for broke in his first term.
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will eed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% ime
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
Conservatives will be nearer 32% next GE after 4 years of misgovernment .
So you keep saying but 42% voted against Corbyn this time, they are quite likely to do so again
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will eed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% ime
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
Conservatives will be nearer 32% next GE after 4 years of misgovernment .
So you keep saying but 42% voted against Corbyn this time, they are quite likely to do so again
"quite likely to do so again" based on what exactly?
But there was no prevailing Conservative narrative by June 8: by election day this had long since dissipated. A lot of May's poor ratings are the result of Tory voters who will vote Tory next time but cannot forgive her for losing the Tory majority to Jeremy Corbyn who they will never vote for. In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity. The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees. Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
Why the assumption corbyn will be a disaster as PM?
Everyone seemed to think he would be a disaster as leader for the last election..
What if he turns out to be a very popular PM and wins a second term?
I actually think he will play it safe in his first term and probably won't do anything too radical... But the second term is the one that will be "pure" socialism" let loose.
On the other hand it depends how eager he is to get on with things... He's not getting any younger so he must decide to go for broke in his first term.
He's only going to get one chance to renationalise British industry. And will be early on just after he wins (if he wins) a GE, when he will be at his most powerful.
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the subject of Europe. A centrist revival is more likely to hit the Tories than Labour.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
Conservatives will be nearer 32% next GE after 4 years of misgovernment .
So you keep saying but 42% voted against Corbyn this time, they are quite likely to do so again
You keep pushing this rosie Conservative scenario but 42% will not vote against Corbyn again when the alternative is a Conservative government that has demonstrated its ineptitude over the 4/5 years that they did so previously .
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will eed.
The striking thing about today's political scene is the hollowing out of the centre. Personally I cannot believe that in response to a diminished Tory offering the country will, on mature reflection, turn to an unreconstructed Marxist fossil. The vacuum is there to be filled - it just requires a catalyst.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% ime
In seats terms only, she has done better owe her the same level of duty.
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40%
I'm not sure where you are reading this inbuilt assumption from. Corbyn's vote will fracture. The question is whether we will hold together May's 42%. If we don't engage in divisive power struggles, have a better manifesto and reach out to the young/working class, I believe we can. But it is not guaranteed.
As I have said before, one or
If the Tories don't tack significantly back to the centre, they will be the ones to leak votes to any resurgent centrist party. Being out of government gives Corbyn's Labour something of a free pass.
They are tacking to the centre. The Conservatives are supporting energy caps, apprenticeship schemes, limiting immigration and Brexit. These are all positions that are supported by the middle of public opinion.
The Tories are a super pragmatic party with a very strong survival instinct. I ments.
That used to be true of the Tories, but they lose that pragmatism when it gets to the
A Vince Cable led LDs is more likely to win over Labour voters than Tory, a Normal Lamb led LDs would have been the reverse
We will see.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
If the next general election is something like Tories 42% Labour 38% LDs 10% the Tories could even get a tiny majority if they hold their seats in Scotland without winning over a single voter who voted for Corbyn last time or winning back a single Europhile who voted for Cameron in 2015 but went Labour or LD this time
Conservatives will be nearer 32% next GE after 4 years of misgovernment .
So you keep saying but 42% voted against Corbyn this time, they are quite likely to do so again
"quite likely to do so again" based on what exactly?
If you vote against someone once you are quite likely to do so again, as Kinnock discovered in 1992
Comments
There seems this inbuilt assumption among Conservatives that they will always have the support of 40% of the electorate no matter what. Again, that's what they thought after 1992 and lost a quarter of that vote.
We'll see.
Lukaku is an interesting choice though. Presumably they just got fed up with being messed about by Real Madrid.
Cook out
Balance out
Root out
Not many runs scored.
In any case, May will not be allowed to lead the Tories into another election. Much more worrying for the Tories is that there does not appear to be an electorally attractive successor. Just aging Brexiteers, buffoons and hard faced champions of Austerity.
The Tories need to get themselves a young dynamic voter friendly leader. They need to do something shocking like abolish tuition fees.
Failing that, they will have to take the view that Corbyn should eventually form a government, for there is no doubt that nothing will aid the Tories more than a Corbyn government which would be so disastrous and let down so many people that it will provide the Tories with that eleusive landslide that May promised and failed to deliver.
Apart from that I think that your analysis is correct.
42% is no big deal when UKIP, the LDs and Greens have seen such vote losses
Everyone seemed to think he would be a disaster as leader for the last election..
What if he turns out to be a very popular PM and wins a second term?
The scoring rate seems to have dropped since Cook was out.
Stokes out = another dot ball.
149 for 5.
You are essentially banking on Labour splitting over Brexit (and the Tories not doing so).
It's the way you tell 'em
Wilson in Oct 74 did very little better than he had in February.
He did not predict anything.
We voted Yes.
We didn't vote on whether to have a another negotiation and then decide. Cameron had already done that and returned with magic beans that wouldn't grow. The upshot was that we voted to leave.
A modest recovery is unlikely to change the political situation one jot, though.
If only Cook were still in scoring slowly.
The pitch looks seriously tricky, but I'd be a lot more confident if Rashid were playing in place of Dawson.
So when they see May and co hanging around the doorway like incontinent tramps you wonder why they don't just move us on
Salmond lost.
To a Tory.
Which party will have the best run up to the conference season? my money is on Labour. May must be bricking it about facing conference.
I think the Tories will struggle to hold onto their new voters, and also the pragmatic europhiles.
https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21724827-labours-leader-will-badly-disappoint-his-young-supporters-jeremy-corbyn-and-bourgeois-dream
On the other hand it depends how eager he is to get on with things... He's not getting any younger so he must decide to go for broke in his first term.
Seriously though there are 16 Labour seats the Tories would gain on a swing to them of just 1%, that would be enough for a majority similar to that in 2015
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative